March 6, 2024: Dwarf Fortress 50.12 has been released.
News: February 3, 2024: The February '24 Report is up.
News: February 4, 2021: Dwarf Fortress Talk #28 has been posted.
News: November 21, 2018: A new Threetoe story has been posted.
Forum Guidelines
This two-threads-at-once thing doesn't work for me.
quote:
Originally posted by RPB:
<STRONG>You are getting an unrealistic amount of gold when you smelt the ore into bars, but what's really outrageous is the amount of gold that is implied to be in the ore before you smelt it down.</STRONG>
...right. That's what I'm saying. Ore should have less metal. We're basically arguing for the same thing. You're saying more bars for the same amount of metal, I'm saying less metal per ore.
Boy, I guess I'm just not being very clear tonight. I'll change my post over at that thread to explain what I mean better.
And the smelter already holds fractional quantities of metal when you melt things. This basically works the same way; you'd have to "melt" so many ores. So hopefully not too hard to implement?
The problem is, each unit of ore = one bar...but that would mean there's either huge pieces of metal, or each tile contains a huge amount of rock.
Perhaps Toady should make the mined ore contain only 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/10 the total gold for a bar. That way it would be a more reasonable chunk of rock, weighing less, but you'd need a few units of it to get a full-size solid gold bar. (Bars seem to be pretty big in DF, bigger than a typical real-life gold bar. It only takes 3 to make a barrel, for instance.)
In real life it takes a lot of digging to get enough gold for a bar, and it mostly comes out of the rock in little bitty nuggets and flakes. This could be applied to other metals as well, particularly precious metals like platinum which are far too plentiful.
The forum search leaves much to be desired, since you have to search each forum individually, but you could at least try searching the suggestions forum.
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.
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. 
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]
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 ]
The last sections are all about real steel-making and DF's model for it.
Indecisive's guide is a very good place to start.
This new version is new to *everybody*, so if you see that the wiki is lacking something, figure it out and write about it! That's what the rest of us are doing.
Seriously though, that would be fun. It could be useful for growing certain plants that aren't native to the area, too.
The problem with adjusting the drop rate is that for some rock, some of the time, you want to get as many big chunks as possible, while for other rocks, other times, you just want to get rid of it. Maybe adding a different designation for each of these cases would help. If you're just clearing space for rooms, designate "Clear out rock", and if you're trying to mine gems or veins of ore, designate "Mine". This way a Legendary miner will always do exactly what you want to happen, and an unskilled miner will just treat both designations indiscriminately.
Perhaps a better way to do this would be to have the miners treat each kind of rock differently, depending on if you set the stone as Economic or not, similiar to how masons will treat stone differently depending on your setting. Then it's much less micromanaging. A Legendary miner will almost always drop a chunk of valuable ore, and pulverize the worthless stuff. A Dabbling miner will pulverize everything maybe 25% of the time, and gradually get better at saving or breaking up the stone appropriately.
It seems this wouldn't be too hard to implement, either, since the framework is there already.
As a side note, even when a legendary miner doesn't leave behind any stones, it's not disappearing into thin air. It's left behind as gravel, which needs to be "removed" by smoothing. I think this works better at simulating rock removal than having a bunch of boulders everywhere (which don't inhibit movement anyway).
quote:
Originally posted by Tormy:
<STRONG>If I see a frogman and a dragon, both of them ultra mighty, this means that those creatures are equally strong? according to their description, they are, however if they are, its making no sense.</STRONG>
No, it means that they're both strong for their species. "Ultra Mighty" means different things for a frogman and a dragon. An "agile" dwarf is still not as fast as a "no descriptor" elf. Even if a dwarf and an elf are both "agile", the elf is faster.
The stats are not absolute, they're relative to the creature. That's how I understand it, anyway.
[ November 07, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]
quote:
Let's say the Head Honcho of the Church of the Chasm, who dwells in a very big, very rich fortress, decides that lo, to chasm refuse is bad ju-ju, yea, verily. That will eventually reach your fortress and your local high priest of the Chasm will of course demand that you stop chasming refuse.
Damnit man, we just got rid of outrageous free-loading noble demands (mostly), and now you want to put essentially the same thing back in! The priests are just nobles by a different name, now with even more righteous pretention. :roll:
I suppose that's ok, but they better have a damn good reason for pulling stunts like that, and they better give my dwarves a lot of happy thoughts or other positive things.
I think it would be better if big changes like that happened very gradually. Religions should be pretty set, so you know what to expect if a missionary immigrates to your fortress and starts to gain some influence (competing with the current major religion and other small sects, of course). You know if they get some followers that those dwarves don't like chasming things, or wearing leather, or whatever. And if they do happen to become the dominant religion in your fortress, you know that you can't risk chasming anything at all, lest the high priest (the original missionary) get too upset.
The religion could change over time, i.e. getting more aggressive or liking scepters instead of skull totems, but it would take awhile for major change to happen. Unless some major holy war happened or something, but that would be rare.
[ August 31, 2007: Message edited by: Turgid Bolk ]
