Bay 12 Games Forum

Excellent suggestion.  Yesplzkthx.

I like Artanis00's idea in general, and I could live with skill caps if done this way!

But if I had my way, I wouldn't have skill caps at all, at least not skill caps related to intelligence (whatever intelligence means... it's a rather fuzzy concept).  Thinking about things a bit, I think intelligence should mostly reflect how quickly one gets higher in particular skills they have an aptitude for.  I think the skills they have aptitude for (their talents!!!) should be something they are born with for the most part.  Motivation would be a third equally important factor in this, which determines whether or not they like a particular job, as well as how and in what nature they are likely to apply their inherent intelligence.

The reason I don't think intelligence should determine a skill cap (at least for non-physical-labor intensive things) is that I believe that anyone with a healthy brain is capable of any mental process anyone else is able to do.  By capable I mean able to do it eventually.  Some people might have faster working brains than other people (or faster at particular processes), but we all have the same basic machinery (and I'm talking the same general physical connections and network structures within the brain).  Every single person here with a normal brain, regardless of intelligence, is capable of the same calculus, quantum theory, etc. that Stephen Hawking can do, the same painting techniques as Michelangelo, and the same piano-playing abilities as Mozart (the same skills!!!).  But, do all of us have the talent and intelligence (in essence, is your brain efficient enough) to get to those skill levels within a lifetime or the same amount of time those guys did?  No.  But we are all physically/mentally able to do those things they do by virtue of the physical properties of our brains; our brains are in no way qualitatively different in their fundamental architecture and ability.  I hope I'm making sense... read the work of Chomsky or Steven Pinker... their theories regarding linguistics follow the same general idea.

Also, (and I think this is major as well!) I think getting higher skills should take much longer than they do now (as in decades to get to master or legendary!). 

Why have this cap?  I don't really like the idea at all.  This is a terribly arbitrary limitation that goes against the spirit of simulationism the game emphasizes.  I mean, we have a problem with having way too many legendary dwarves because it doesn't seem plausible, right?  There's an absence of verisimilitude that sort of ruins immersion, no?  Then how does it make sense to have such a limitation which serves to add yet another glaring red flag that ruins immersion by calling attention to this undesirable aspect of the game?

Among geniuses in history, you can count some kids who were very precocious (most of them indeed, were spotted very early). It's not a matter of time.
Our brains do not work the same way (difference for example between people working with left or right hemisphere).
Anyway, I agree with the fast that it's not only a matter of intelligence, you can motivation, peculiar physical skills, etc).

I see what you mean.  And I agree there are some qualitative differences between brains of individuals, and in that respect we all think differently and that is independent of time.  However, I'd be willing to argue (not in this thread of course!, and this is something that doesn't necessarily disagree with what you say!) that we all think at a fundamental level in the same way; as in we all have the same basic brain centers with the same basic hardwiring, and in that respect we all have the equipment to do things like math, language, empathy, etc., and can technically do anything mentally that anyone else can do.  However, small differences due to genetics, life experiences, handedness etc. affect in what ways we use this basic hardwiring, which can affect the "speed" at which we do things and propensities to arrive at whatever conclusions or perceive this or that (like how well we can do math, or learn a new language, or savant numerosity, or things like that).  But that is very much open to interpretation and is not something that can be definitively proven at the moment...

Quote from: AngleWyrm on November 09, 2010, 03:05:08 pm

to the miner to expand his fields

I see some problems here. Firstly, how could the game know that the work the miner was doing was to expand farms? Every time a farm plot is placed, the miner who originally dug the tile gets credited? Every dirt tile the miner digs gets credited?

How do miners get paid, anyway? Does every single boulder and gem they winkle out become their private property? If so, what happens when we, the players, need to build a wall? Does the miner lose their boulder, or does it become the miner's wall? Or do the masons buy the boulder from the miner, in which case, how do they make their money?

An excellent question!  It's come up in this thread... it has some ideas that might be applicable here to help come up with a good answer to it. 

Aw, hell, I'll throw in what I said in the thread:
[spoiler]Yeah.  Underlying sort of "intangible" things like motivation, willingness, want, etc. will need to be modeled in a reasonable way.  Personality traits definitely should play a role, but there should be more to the picture...

Another thing that will also need some clarification in addition to the stuff mentioned is ownership of the raw materials, tools, and stuff that are the basis of the economy after the dwarven economy sets in in a fort.  If a guild in this game is going to follow the definition of what a guild is, this needs to be addressed.  Guilds were a lot like cartels and corporations in their own right, mandating that its members produce and sell things meeting a standard of quality to satisfy market demand and make the guild money.  These mandates would often be independent of other governing bodies.  Guilds would provide members with access to tools and raw materials that the guild itself owned provided that the members give back to the guild a good deal of their profits and time.

Let's use mining as an example of what I would suggest:

If YOU designate mining of an area, the fort itself should pay miners from the fort's own coffers (paying with goods? or with coins?).  The miners could use fortress-owned picks (or guild owned picks if part of a guild) if they don't own their own.  If the miners were part of a guild, the guild would likely want a share of the profits from the workers, their rationale being that they helped provide employment/training to the workers and helped provide labor for the fort's project.  Whether or not the fort will accomodate the guild's demands would be up to the player. 

If a guild allowed to automate mining designates mining of a vein of ore, does the guild end up owning what it mines (likely with an imposed tax by the governing body of the fort i.e. you), free to sell it to the fort or other buyers?  Perhaps this could be determined by the player and/or other nobles.
 

Basically, the player should be able to set what degree of ownership there is of raw materials, produced goods, workshops, tools, etc.  Does everything made become communal property?  Does the maker of the craft own it, or is it the fort's or guild's?  Does the worker or guild own the workshop?  Do they have to rent it?  Is it free for use?  What taxes are there?  The player should be able to dictate all of these as the ruler of the fort.  Guilds should have internal rules, like guild fees, ownership rules, and rules about price-setting.  Guilds and individuals should be able to protest or accept rulings made by the player/fort, and if guilds are at odds with the fort's rulings, then they can protest, leave, or whatever. /spoiler]

In essence, I think a fort (as the game seems to be headed right now) functions more like a "commune" (in the MEDIEVAL SENSE!!!! Not so much the communist sense...), and in essence a corporation of sorts...

EDIT:  Also...

I'd like to see a system where you set a designated digging area then assign it to a miner and he gains credit for the hours he spends digging. Dug-out material still becomes property of the fortress.

The fort would sell the material to a mason to build a door, then buy the door. Same for woodcutters/carpenters. Woodcutters get paid per hour spent chopping, fort sells the wood to the carpenter, he makes a bed, fort buys the bed.

Obviously there would need to be a wage adjustment based on skill as well, or skilled miners would make less money due to digging faster.

I like this idea.  But I also think there should be an option of sort of a serfdom sort of system (which ties in with the class warfare thread and social hierarchy modeling) where a higher-up dwarf can "own" some land (but this might be actually what the player is doing sort of, so it is sorta already like this), and the serfs who work it aren't necessarily sold working materials or anything (that's all owned by the lord or the fort in the player's case).  The serfs are tied to the land (or mountain) and work it in exchange for protection and a place to live.  I dunno...  Actually, this is sorta what you said, except at no time are raw materials sold to the crafter nor craft bought from the crafter by the fort.  This is pretty much how serfdom worked, to my understanding.

EDIT: EDIT:

I will throw in another idea here... the player should be able to set the degree of ownership people have over this, that, or the other.  In this way, one could have a fort that behaves as a Medici-era city-state, a feudal town under a system of serfdom, or something in between.

I think having the option to explicitly define both what can and cannot be used as ammo for a particular siege engine or soldier would be awesome... so long as there's an easy way to do it, like selecting an entire type of possibly usable object as being able to be used, or a specific stockpile.  That way it would be easy to select 10³ objects for firing.  Perhaps a similar or the same system could be used for building materials for particular workshops, which would be nice for another thread... 

Also: I suggest the OP author and everyone else for that matter check this out:  http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westciv/medsoc/

This is a pretty enlightening essay written by someone who knows their stuff.  It seems like social stratification could be rather nebulous, and the sense of patriotism and nationalism wasn't really a part of most peoples' lives until the rise of powerful centralized governments.  Hmmmm a LOT of food for thought there that I will undoubtedly post about later.

EDIT: ALSO COOL!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(medieval)  <--- ties in VERY nicely with the discussion at hand.