Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on June 11, 2012, 11:24:48 am

Quote from: Silverionmox on June 11, 2012, 10:17:54 am

>I 'd say your not supposed to know what kind of output to expect.
Then why provide skill labels at all?

It's sensible to provide an indication of how skilled a dwarf is. It's not sensible to provide a misleading guess as to how much the dwarf's products will be worth.

Why is that sensible, and why does it cease to be sensible as soon as you use a marker for that actually means something in the DF world?

It's sensible because, IRL, you can tell of be told if someone's been working at a job for decades and is one of the best in the business or if they just started work last week. And quality doesn't mean anything in the DF world, just to us people playing DF. Presumably, the best +gauntlets+ are not noticably different than the worst *gauntlets*.

Quote

>As you said before, Df isn't supposed to be some kind of spread sheet were you know the exact inputs and outputs.
You don't, the quality level is merely an indication.

Exactly the issue. "Hm, this guy is a *Mason*...does that mean 55% superior or 80% superior?"

Mmm, this guy is a talented mason... does that mean fine, good, superior and if so, what can I expect on average?[/quote]
It means he's good but not the best, and that he'll churn out fair-quality stuff (if not the best).

Quote

>I'm all for hiding not really important information from the player, while allowing them to figure it out if they really want to.
The relative value of a dwarf is almost completely determined by his skills. It's critical information.

First off, a dwarf in the mid- to high-skill range can make anything from +goods+ or -goods- to =goods= and even masterworks (I've had a masterwork at around Proficient skill level, although it's admitadly rare), so you're screwed if you want exacts.
Second, why do you need to know exactly how many +iron gauntlets+ or whatever your dwarves will make, as opposed to -iron gauntlets- or *iron gauntlets*? And Armok help you if your dwarf gets XP from making those +iron gauntlets+ you need...

>Your system would be confusing, as different skill levels would overlap. (Say one level has 70% chance to produce a normal item, the next 60%).
No, because you'd know that it's an average. You simply learn not to expect production of exactly the same quality (it's like that right now, nothing changes in that regard); they're people, not machines, after all.

That's the issue. Leaving aside the aforementioned issues of spread (one skill level can produce anywhere from well-crafted to exceptional) and variability (similar but in smaller data sets), the average quality is going to be shared over multiple skill levels. Saying "You'd know it's an average" doesn't change that you don't know if it's going to be 60% or 70%--and given the wide spread and variability mentioned above, it's more likely something like 30-50%.[/quote]I don't want exact prediction of the output, where did you get that idea? The output is a bit randomized depending on skill level, so it wouldn't even be possible. That's not my intention or goal, why are you arguing against it?[/quote]
You might want to be a bit more clear. "Have dwarves show the average quality of goods they produce instead of their skill!...No, I didn't mean that I wanted a good indication of what they'd actually make. How could you think that?" is basically how I'm reading you.

Quote

>Scrapping these levels would reduce the graduality of leveling, giving them a feeling that no progress is made.
Right now the skill ranking is so confusing that there are basically only two that are recognizable: legendary, and non-legendary. I don't think it's good game design practice to put in arbitrary finish lines to fake an accomplishment. Dwarves produce faster and better items: that's the only distinction that matters, and a very real reward.

Not true. Master levels are obviously the highest below legendary, dabbling obviously means "barely done any," and only some of the nearby mid-level skill names can be confused with each other

So you can distinguish three or four different skill clusters... Using the quality symbols would indicate five or six different skill levels. Tell me again, what's the use of the extra ones we have currently?[/quote]
I can distinguish between all skill levels, not just clusters. It's more an issue of where on the continuum they fall, and if it matters that much, again, I can check the q-P page to see an exact listing of skill levels from dabbling to legendary. Not that I can think of any situation where it woud be that important, but it would be IMPOSSIBLE to distinguish between adjacent skill levels with your system unless they happened to fall on either side of an average quality level divide.

And, as I noted, not only have they been in DF a long, long time, you can check the exact order by glancing at the profile of any workshop and hitting the + and - keys![/quote]That's like saying: Chinese is perfectly understandable for everyone, you can always look up the words in nearby dictionary..[/quote]
It would be, if there were only a dozen words in Chinese, most people knew most of them, and Chinese people came with a little book that they handed out reminding you of what the word mean.

Quote

>in this case making the player wait longer before getting decent items,
Nothing changes in the rate of skill advancement, this thread only concerns the labels we stick on it.

Okay, let me rephrase that for him: Making the player wait longer before knowing that they'll consistantly get decent items.

Even legendaries make *items* at times. You'll never be sure.[/quote]
Your point? That seems to do nothing but show that even you know how stupid it is to show average qualities!

Quote

>While I agree that it might be confusing, I would indeed miss the skill levels, as would a whole lot of other players, while there wouldn't  be a net gain of functionality.
It would be more functional: it indicates something real (output quality) rather than an arbitrary ranking; also it's a reduction of interface clutter, leaving more mental energy for the rest.

Alright, it's less arbitrary from a gameplay perspective, but more "gamey." Can you see a dwarf saying, "Urist over there makes 45% of his mugs at Well-Crafted quality level, which multiplies value by 2?"

Can you see them saying: "Yeah, Urist and Bomrek both carve fine mugs, but we call Urist talented and Bomrek great just because he got up earlier this morning and produced a dozen more."
The quality is not only a value indicator. I do not propose to indicate the skills by dwarfbucks generated. Frankly, what else does the skill influence but the quality produced? It's not gamey, it's the only thing that matters. When skills start to get irregular effects depending on the level (e.g. can only make swords at level 8 weaponsmith), then there might be reason to name the levels (heaven forbid that turd of a game mechanic, though). But not as it is now.[/quote]
Again, just because we only see a level of quantums as far as quality goes does not mean that less than a dozen types of shale mugs, or iron gauntlets, or whatever, exist. We're only supposed to know what our dwarves know--that's why we need a bookkeeper (or is it broker?) with Appraisal skill before knowing how much the +<<*iron gauntlet*>>+ is worth, and why we don't learn about thieves and ambushers the instant they enter the map. And so on and so forth. To say nothing of how meaningless the average is when low-mid skills produce masterworks and the highest skill levels still produce mere superior-quality goods...

Quote

But you don't know the exact outputs, they're averages, not absolutes.

So, because you know the average, that's nothing like being able to easily calculate how much value you can get from X stone?

I do not want to know, and I don't care for value in particular (that'll depend on economic needs in the future, anyway). Quality is the only thing influenced by skill (besides speed, but the effect follows the same pattern), so why bother to insert an arbitrary, confusing, superfluous bunch of named levels in between?[/quote]
Wait, you want the game to tell you average quality, but you don't care that it's a grossly misleading figure? And what do you mean, "an arbitrary, confusing, superfluous bunch of named levels in between?" To start with, in between what? Never producing masterworks and always making them? The first can be surpassed within months of embark, the latter can never be reached. All there is is a slowly graduated scale of chances of making various qualities of goods.

Forsaken1111:
It's better than the current version. But, IMO, if we need to number the levels to distinguish them, it's a flashing indicator that they're useless. Does anyone treat a talented and a proficient dwarf differently?

Not really, but if we wanted to gurantee that only our highest-skilled dwarves were working in the workshops, we'd be able to tell the difference. In your system, they'd both be +dwarves+ or something. And "Hey, someone came up with a slightly better system with numbers; the current system must be useless!" argument is stupid. If it was true, we'd need to look at the wiki every time we tried to tell if the dabbling mason was better than the legendary one. Only an idiot would be that bad, or even to be unable to tell which of two dwarvesis more skilled if there's at least a couple divisions of rank between them. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Silverionmox, does that describe you?

Maybe something like:

A few facts--Makes only base quality weapons, or maybe well-crafted for master or legendary crafters.
General Familiarity--Makes at qualities associated with, say, third to half skill. No exceptionals or masterworks.
Common Knowledge--Makes at qualities associated with, say, two-thirds to three-quarters skill. No masterworks.
Native (weaponry equivilant of Common Domestic in animal training; all weapons your civ has access to by default are at this level, probably)--As what passes for normal.

By simply finding and extensively studying several, say, whips, or chausses, or whatever you're trying to study, you'll eventually get to the "a few facts" level (say, after studying 15-20 of them, destroying 40-75% but those not destroyed can't be re-studied?). At this point, if the weapon is a projectile weapon, you have a chance (50-75%?) to gain the "a few facts" level of comprehension with a random projectile that can be used with that weapon (comprehension of projectiles and weapons is otherwise kept spearate). After creating a couple dozen or so, studying about 50-100 more, or a combination of the two, you get to the "General Familiarity" level of comprehension, at which point merely studying more of them won't help. However, using them will. After a while longer (~80-120 more forgings, or a year and change? of having a 10-dwarf squad use the item), you reach the "Common Knowledge" level. Reaching the "Native" level of comprehension requires a heckofalot of effort, or something other than practice.
Artifacts increase comprehension massively--one launches the comprehension level up past "a few facts" and halfway to "General Familiarity," assuming no former experience with the gear, and an artifact can be studied with no risk of breakage. You can buy gear from traders; this automatically increases your comprehension a bit less than studying the weapon (and then you can do that, too). You can also hire someone from a civ to teach you, which massively increases your comprehension (perhaps to a few facts within a few months, general familiarity within a year, common knowledge in a few more, and native-level by the end of the decade, assuming no other sources of learning?) but also ties up your smiths or craftsdwarves for a while (a total of around 20 days per month with some dwarf with the appropriate skill, to get full benifets), and you need to feed and protect the foreigner.

Frankenstein's Monster works well. And lay off the sarcasm, if you wouldn't mind; rudeness is another of my pet peeves.

I like the rest of the names but the legendary (+1)(+2)(+3)(+4)(+5) is arbitrary.
If the skill levels are going to be named then fine, but legendary should be the top rank.

It is. Legendary+X is just a few, in-memory-only skill levels that might increase the chance of making masterworks a bit (I don't remember).

>I 'd say your not supposed to know what kind of output to expect.

Then why provide skill labels at all?

It's sensible to provide an indication of how skilled a dwarf is. It's not sensible to provide a misleading guess as to how much the dwarf's products will be worth.

>As you said before, Df isn't supposed to be some kind of spread sheet were you know the exact inputs and outputs.

You don't, the quality level is merely an indication.

Exactly the issue. "Hm, this guy is a *Mason*...does that mean 55% superior or 80% superior?"

>I'm all for hiding not really important information from the player, while allowing them to figure it out if they really want to.

The relative value of a dwarf is almost completely determined by his skills. It's critical information.

First off, a dwarf in the mid- to high-skill range can make anything from +goods+ or -goods- to =goods= and even masterworks (I've had a masterwork at around Proficient skill level, although it's admitadly rare), so you're screwed if you want exacts.
Second, why do you need to know exactly how many +iron gauntlets+ or whatever your dwarves will make, as opposed to -iron gauntlets- or *iron gauntlets*? And Armok help you if your dwarf gets XP from making those +iron gauntlets+ you need...

>Your system would be confusing, as different skill levels would overlap. (Say one level has 70% chance to produce a normal item, the next 60%).

No, because you'd know that it's an average. You simply learn not to expect production of exactly the same quality (it's like that right now, nothing changes in that regard); they're people, not machines, after all.

That's the issue. Leaving aside the aforementioned issues of spread (one skill level can produce anywhere from well-crafted to exceptional) and variability (similar but in smaller data sets), the average quality is going to be shared over multiple skill levels. Saying "You'd know it's an average" doesn't change that you don't know if it's going to be 60% or 70%--and given the wide spread and variability mentioned above, it's more likely something like 30-50%.

>Scrapping these levels would reduce the graduality of leveling, giving them a feeling that no progress is made.

Right now the skill ranking is so confusing that there are basically only two that are recognizable: legendary, and non-legendary. I don't think it's good game design practice to put in arbitrary finish lines to fake an accomplishment. Dwarves produce faster and better items: that's the only distinction that matters, and a very real reward.

Not true. Master levels are obviously the highest below legendary, dabbling obviously means "barely done any," and only some of the nearby mid-level skill names can be confused with each other. And, as I noted, not only have they been in DF a long, long time, you can check the exact order by glancing at the profile of any workshop and hitting the + and - keys!

>in this case making the player wait longer before getting decent items,

Nothing changes in the rate of skill advancement, this thread only concerns the labels we stick on it.

Okay, let me rephrase that for him: Making the player wait longer before knowing that they'll consistantly get decent items.

>While I agree that it might be confusing, I would indeed miss the skill levels, as would a whole lot of other players, while there wouldn't  be a net gain of functionality.

It would be more functional: it indicates something real (output quality) rather than an arbitrary ranking; also it's a reduction of interface clutter, leaving more mental energy for the rest.

Alright, it's less arbitrary from a gameplay perspective, but more "gamey." Can you see a dwarf saying, "Urist over there makes 45% of his mugs at Well-Crafted quality level, which multiplies value by 2?"

I can do what I want with rawifying the labels. I'd still prefer those terms to represent something real though: legendary should indicate actual famousness, master-apprentice-novice should indicate real economic or professional positions, talented should indicate natural aptitude, not skill, and so on.

Reasonable.

But you don't know the exact outputs, they're averages, not absolutes.

So, because you know the average, that's nothing like being able to easily calculate how much value you can get from X stone?

How, praytell, would you use magma? It's not a magical substance that wipes out armies, powers forges, and makes anything you like; it's just hot rock.

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on May 15, 2012, 10:24:31 am

Quote from: TheCoolSideofthePIllow on May 15, 2012, 09:51:01 am

Quote from: slothen on May 15, 2012, 09:16:47 am

No.  Not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would require a complete re-conceptualization of the game and interface, and would be a distraction from the core development goals.  It would also probably require a full engine re-write.

Also this thread has been made a million times, and its fantasyland.

In no way what-so-ever would it require any tweaking at all, let alone a complete re-conceptualization of the interface (which, let's be honest, could use an overhaul anyway) since the game would essentially play the same. Core engine changes, however, may be necessary, but in all likelihood are not. Taking the stuff that's already there and simply sending that information across a network would be (relatively) minor, if Toady ever decided to add it (or release source code so others can add it themselves). About the only mechanic change needed would be the removal of pausing. Maybe even slow the game down so it's manageable without pausing.

I certainly would not expect such an addition soon; something like this would be a mere after-thought compared to everything already on the coming features list and what's already in the game.

It would require an interface change, and an engine change and a gameplay change. The main problem is getting and keeping all the forts synched. ie, what happens if one player wants to pause the game. What if someone has a slow PC. Slowing the game down so that it is doable whitout pausing would be impossible. Since, as you might have noticed, the game autopauses( probably because the engine doesn't allow it otherwise) during designations.

Forget it, it's not going to happen how many times it's suggested.

*cough* *cough* Server side connection!!! *cough*

And why the HELL would you pause a multiplayer game? It wouldn't make any sense. If your dwarves die, it's because YOU (their god) has forsaken them.

1. What do you mean, server side connection? DF has no ability to make network connections, period. That would be only one of many changes needed to allow multiplayer.
And why pause? Um...so you can build buildings, or dig, or gather plants, or make stuff, or designate nobles, or make a military, or do ANYTHING AT ALL...

Face it: If something this fundamentally major was left out at early stages, why would it be added right in the middle of development, when it would require re-tooling most everything? It's never happening; deal with it; join a succession fortress.

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on June 10, 2012, 07:46:20 pm

Quote from: King Mir on June 10, 2012, 01:33:06 pm

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on June 10, 2012, 10:40:27 am

Quote from: Vargas Gray on June 10, 2012, 08:45:24 am

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on June 10, 2012, 06:21:10 am

What are some realistic ways to deal with aquifers? Other than avoiding them.

It seems realistic to me to be able to pump out aquifer water and build walls to keep more from coming in.

Perhaps the issue isn't what's the most realistic way, as in the nature, to deal with aquifers in the game, aka super realistic mechanics and such. But surely the goals should be to make it desirable and fun overall, an to create aquifers that's more or less sensible in the way that they don't, almost 100% of the times, covers an entire zx-level and is made up of limitless water producing stones.

It's possible to pump out a smaller area in an aquifer but that requires an ridiculous amount of windmills and pumps. Or as most do: drop a gigantic stoneplug down into the aquifer and dig through the rubble.

I've pierced an aquifer with four dwarves operating four pumps. No windmills needed. Also, DF strives for realism in every way it can.

Yeah, it shouldn't take that much. One pump per level at best, IMO. And no job cancellation spam because of such a normal task as breeching aquifers.

The job cancellation spam is an unavoidable side effect of various other mechanics used to keep dwarves from drowning themselves while building a wall they noticed in a room that is about to be all flooded.

It's not unavoidable if the room isn't about to drown dwarves while they put a wall up.

<--Point here; Comments based on thinking the point is over there --->
My point was that the same rules that tell dwarves not to build in flooding rooms also tell them not to build in rooms with water that's about to be removed.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote from: 10ebbor10 on June 10, 2012, 08:04:18 am

Then again, that might make them a bit to easy. Maybe every so often one of the walls will crack, leading to water seeping in?

Quote

Aquifers shouldn't be seen as a encounter of some sort that should and will hinder the advances of the player and the fortress to an 100%. It should be seen as a natural occurrence that might be a hinder.
Now, as I see it, aquifers are 100% passive encounters that will effect your fortress always negatively, well perhaps not always but more or less. The aquifer might doom your fortress right from the start because of the lack of materials that can be plunged into it as a plug to be dug through.
BTW: I do like the idea of walls being able to crumble/crack and let water forth into your fort or into whatever open area there's behind the wall. It would make digging a lot more !FUN! The problem might how to implement it as a mechanic that doesn't ruin your game because of flooding occurring too often and too random.

Look above for my first part.
Also, why shouldn't aquifers be a challenge? DF is a game where everything is a danger, if you don't know what you're doing. It's not like breeching the aquifer wrong wil cause it to start shooting water up to flood your fortress!
I do agree that eventual but inevitable breakage of walls would ruin the fun in aquifers.

Aquifers should be as much of a challenge as they are in real life, and no more. Players can and do disagree on how much fun aquifers are; that's not a reason to change them. Their lack of realistic operation is.

How much of a challenge are they IRL? None, because humans build their settlements above the water table. Dwarves don't. Apples and oranges, pal.

Tell that to my old landlord! Humans build holes in the ground all the time. Homes, like the one I rented in, can have basements that are bellow the water table, if the water table is very high. Parking garages probably deal with it all the time. And actually building a foundation for anything big would run into the water table.

Alright, I'll compromise: Humans don't build massive living complexes, with everything from living spaces to workshops to forges, under the water table. Dwarves do. Still apples and oranges, or at least apples and peaches.

Quote

Quote from: King Mir on June 10, 2012, 01:54:06 pm

Quote from: GreatWyrmGold on June 10, 2012, 01:25:11 pm

It probably depends on the aquifer. For instance, as someone mentioned, when impermeable rock is on top of an aquifer, it becomes pressurised, so the water would come out faster.

Ok, but when do you find impermeable rock on top of aquifers in DF? Not most of the time. So if all aquifers are made the same, then the water should come out slowly. For the more rare, deeper aquifers like you describe, maybe the 4 pumps would be needed. But in those cases, things are easier, because you have access to the rock on top.

I was giving an example. Never having seen any real-life mines with aquifers, I had to go with an extreme RL example. Presumably not all real-world aquifers are identical.

I agree they aren't identical, and I agree that aquifers can be pressurized -- if they're under impermeable rock. In fact, according to wiki, they can have enough pressure to gush out above ground level if that impermeable  rock is breached. But that requires impermeable rock, which means such an aquifer would never cause a problem with providing access to rock.

Currently aquifers are an unrealistic major obstacle, everywhere. I don't mind it being an obstacle, even a major one, if it models real world challenges. But currently it doesn't.

[/quote]
"Major?" 99 times out of 100, I can pierce an aquifer easily if I don't make a stupid mistake and lose the pick, and I usually avoid aquifers. That leads to point II: "'Everywhere?' Use the site finder bundled with the embark software to look for a location with no aquifer. I do it all the time! The sites might not have everything you want, but it's not a perfect world, nor is DF supposed to hand you everything on a golden platter."
And, again: You want it to model real-world challenges. Tell me how. What's a realistic way to handle aquifer piercing? Again, like I said at the start of the thread, how to people IRL deal with aquifers? If it so much unlike how dwarves do it?

What I said was that it went beyond the realm of mere surgery, mere medicine. Stitching parts of two disparate corpses into one and making a living creature is more than any mere doctor can do. It takes a necromancer working with a surgeon, or else a mad scientist.

And yes, I know I know you know that Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster, but it bugs me.