Dwarf Fortress Wiki - User contributions [en]

Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Centralized Discussion

2010-07-16T08:38:57Z

Onul Rigothzas: Undo revision 121628 by 69.142.94.254 (Talk)

== C++ Symbols ==
Hi, Im try using "windows debugging tools" to get some useful information about some crashs since windows 7 doesnt have the so called "dr watson" anymore (which creates a dump useful for toady).
For the debug info to be more useful, there is an option to use symbols file (*.pdb)
I found some c++ symbols in the wiki but is it possible to make a real pdb file out of that?
copypasta into a new txt file and renaming the extension doesnt seem to work.

== Clarification on "Verification" of content ==
The policy is that all content from 40d must be verified before making it to the 2010 namespace. Whould confirming with the changelog that something hasn't changed be good enough to meet this requirement? If not, does this means that each feature must be tested in game? [[User:bongotastic|bongotastic]] #11:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
:In general the changelog is not sufficient. For example, the changelog doesn't say that the [[DF2010:Archery Target]] is now broken, but if you tried it out personally before moving it then you would know that simply copy-pasting this is a bad idea. Not a small task I know, but long-term this is far more valuable. Any article in particular you were thinking about? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 12:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

== Thoughts? ==
Any thoughts on this page? Any potentially useful organizing ideas? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:I think this is a great idea. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

== Missing discussions? ==
Are there any important discussions I've missed, or anything you'd like to discussion that you'd like a location to discuss? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 16:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:Will any articles be pruned away or merged? In the jump from 40D to v31 a lot of articles that used to be served well by tables seem to have become their own articles, which really clutters the place up and scatters information all over unfindably. Stones, ores, and gems are the most obvious, they really only need three tables instead of hundreds of articles. --[[User:Corona688|Corona688]] 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::Might I suggest responses go to the just created [[Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Article Consolidation|Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Article Consolidation talk page]]. I think this is a big issue worth discussing, and so it deserves to be discussed there. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 21:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:I wonder, is there a place here for a Future Versions Ideas page? I have many ideas for things that could be used in future versions of Dwarf Fort, but there's no way to get the word to Toady that I'm aware of, aside from straight e-mailing him...--[[User:Aescula|Aescula]] 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not really sure if the wiki is the right place for something like that. I mostly say that because I don't think that he will look at what we set up for the wiki either. There is a [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0 Suggestions Forum] that seems to be the best place for that kind of thing. I imagine if he looks anywhere he looks there. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

== Template madness ==
Okay I was looking at [[DF2010:Native platinum]] and wanted to make the changes but the arrangement of templates make editing the sidebar incredibly complicated even for the fairly good amount of knowledge I have of the wiki.

This really doesn't need to be this complicated. Could someone explain how it works and more importantly why it needs to be so complicated. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 21:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:I agree, we need a short tutorial on templates. This is shutting out IPs (and probably the majority of editors) through the backdoor. --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 00:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Template Here] [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Parser_functions you] [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Parser_functions_in_templates go.] [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Right. You make it obvious that excessive use of templates will make the wiki unusable for all but a small aristocracy. Plus we would still need a central place frequently visited by editors that links to those pages. Maybe link to the -still missing- ''short'' tutorial next to every template in the articles? --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 20:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
::You seem confident that you will get what you want. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 23:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

== Magmawiki skin feedback ==
I just decided to try out the new skin. I am using it for ten minutes and I already can't imagine using anything different, it's great!--[[User:SanDiego|SanDiego]] 13:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

== If not consolidation, then what? ==

I don't seem to have a lot of support for article consolidation, and have abruptly been relieved of the time I had to try and help. Fine. I still insist the clutter of pages remains troublesome. Whenever your search is slightly off, instead of returning few to no results, it returns hundreds of irrelevant results. When I search for BODY_SIZE I don't want creature_standard.txt, grimeling size, mud man size, olmman size, fire man size, insert-material-here-man size or anything else's tags, I'm looking for info on the tags themselves. Same when I search "raws", I don't mean those of beetles, whales, walruses, sturgeon, stingray, etc, etc, etc. Redirects won't fix this until we redirect every possible thing that needs to be redirected, at all, ever, but that seems an even more exhaustive task than tables.

Is it possible to prevent the search from indexing these stub articles, or at least giving them less priority? The 'whale' page is going to be irrelevant to anyone not searching for whales... --[[User:Corona688|Corona688]] 17:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with you that there isn't the support for consolidation. I do understand what you're saying. It seems like there are two possible solutions to your problem.
:*Better organization: This is entirely possible, but very complicated. I've been trying to improve this but it is very difficult. If you don't have the time to work on this and improve it you'll have to rely on my inconsistent free time to make some improvements. If you have some good ideas besides "make it better" I'm all ears.
:*Better search: This is much more difficult, and probably not exactly possible given the extreme constraints that is the mediawiki software. You'd be pleased to know that we ([[User:Briess]] and [[User:Emi]]) are working on developing a new wiki software specifically for DF. Details can be found [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Magmawiki|here]] and [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=55613.60 here]. I can only assume that they will make sure to provide improved searching as one of their goals, but if you want to post in the forum thread your wishes that would probably be useful.
:[[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 20:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

::Yeah, it's not the wiki that sucks, the search function is limited. You are simply asking too much. --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Construction

2010-07-16T08:37:48Z

Onul Rigothzas: Exactly how one might "Damn" a brook :-)

== Too close to edge ==
I tried to damp the brook (see project at my page) and got strange warning when tried to place a wall closer than 6 squares from map edge - '''Too close to edge'''. The Fortifications show the same warning, while other constructions - floors, stairs, ramps can be easily built. 

Also, some of buildings/furniture refuse to be placed near the edge: 
Beds, chairs, tables, coffins cannot be placed anywhere outside. When closer than 6 squares to map edge it shows "too close" warning, elsewhere it shows "must be inside" 
Armor stands, doors, floodgates, floor hatches, floor or wall grates, floor or bertical bars, cabinets, containers, trap components, supports, restraints, cages, archery targets, machine conponents - cannot be placed at outside squares closer than 6 squares to map edge - shows "too close" warning. Inside squares are ok anywhere. 
Bridges can be placed anywhere (what about raising bridge, that transforms into a wall? experiments needed!). Roads behave the same. 
Workshops, furnaces, kennels, farm plots should be at least 6 squares away from edge. Trade depot - even 10 squares! 
Statues, windows, well, siedge engines weren't tested.
--[[User:Peregarrett|Peregarrett]] 07:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

:That's all as expected from previous versions. Btw, are you ''damming'' or ''damping'' your brook? ;) --[[User:Birthright|Birthright]] 14:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

::Damn that brook! Always meddling, always interfering! I'll get you next time... NEXT TIME! --[[User:Zombiejustice|Zombiejustice]] 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

: Damming of course. =) But damning also. But that feature with constructions was a bit discouraging, and the agorithm is kind of confusing here. I think it should be added somewhere to wiki page--[[User:Peregarrett|Peregarrett]] 06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
::Damning? Wouldn't that require diverting the flow down into [[Hell]]? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

== Deconstructing floors onto a dwarf's head ==

If I deconstruct a floor, it drops the stone/block onto the space below. If that space is occupied by a dwarf, will it injure them?
I'm trying to devise a safe way to build large buildings without trapping dwarves or injuring them etc and this is an issue that keeps nagging me.
If it's possible to squash dwarves with deconstructed floor tiles, how do I safely deconstruct them? ie. keep dorfs out from undearneath while I'm deconstructing?--[[Special:Contributions/208.81.12.34|208.81.12.34]] 19:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
: Seems that falling stone injures no one. I had a shaft 10 floors deep designed as garbage dump and quite traffic at landing zone. No dwarves were hurt. Stone does damage only from stone traps or catapults. Anyway, you can use burrows or restricted traffic areas to keep them out. [[User:Peregarrett|Peregarrett]] 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

== Order of construction ==

If i place for example a wall 10 squares long at once, is there any order in which those sections will be build? I mean, is it always kind of "west first, east second, north first, south second"? Sequent builds go as LIFO, and what about internal order of construction?

== Helpful trick for preventing Dwarfs from getting stuck behind walls. ==

I can't remember where I learned this, either from forums, or an old discussion here on the wiki, but in 40d, I read somewhere a quick trick that keeps dwarfs from getting stuck on the wrong side of walls when building them, and I thought I might as well suggest it to see what others thought of it. For further control when making large projects when you don't want to trap a dwarf, you can also designate walls on tiles you don't want dwarfs to step on, and suspend them. Dwarfs will not walk on these walls if they can avoid it. Example: If you're creating a East-West wall, and you don't want your dwarfs to go North of it, designate your wall, and then create a second series of wall constructions directly to the right of the wall to the North of what you wanted to build and suspend them.

Bad text picture:

Death

SSSSSSSSS

(Ignore this empty space put here so that the S and Os would stop being on the same line)

OOOOOOOOO

Happy, not dead Dwarfs

Where O is the wall you want to build your wall, and S is the row of suspended wall tiles. The Dwarfs will not step on the S tiles, or cross them, if they can prevent it and have no reason to (such as "Goblin Christmas). Afterward, you can just remove the suspended designations, and your dwarfs won't build the last tile from the wrong side and trap themselves. --[[User:Alkyon|Alkyon]] 02:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Water wheel

2010-07-03T11:57:59Z

Onul Rigothzas: /* Perpetual Motion, now with added turtles! */

==Perpetual Motion==
Done a few quick tests. Waterwheels and screw pumps still have the same numbers for power. Built a perpetual motion machine using the #3 reactor design which works as before. [[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 19:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
:Also tested the Dwarven Water Reactor, as well as a mini variant. Both function fully and are repeatable. Thus, I added the two designs into the page. [[User:Jjdorf|Jjdorf]] 09:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
::The Dwarven Water Reactor is working splendidly for me, although I subsequently discovered a siege engineer standing on the intake grate, apparently just staring at it... until, to my utter astonishment, he rather self-satisfiedly wandered off with a turtle fished out of the running device! Apparently they're good for more than just power. --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 11:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

== Perpetual motion if Goldberg were a dwarf... ==

I had a need to pump water out of my artificial underground lake. 
I could have just built a windmill, but I figured that since I was pumping out the water anyway, I may as well have some fun with it. 
Here is what I plan to build. I'll let you know how it goes...

{|
|'''Top Level'''
|'''Middle Level'''
|'''Bottom Level'''
|-
|
{| style="border: 0; border-spacing:0; background: #000; font-family: monospace; font-weight: bold; font-size: 135%"
|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|*
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #777; padding: 0"|*
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|*
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|

|-
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|}

|
{| style="border: 0; border-spacing:0; background: #000; font-family: monospace; font-weight: bold; font-size: 135%"
|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╗
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #008000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #00FF00; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╝
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╔
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╝
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #777; padding: 0"|*
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|*
|style="color: #808000; padding: 0"|═

|-
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╚
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╗
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #880; padding: 0"|W
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #00FF00; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #008000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #00FF00; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #008000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╔
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╝
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+
|}

|
{| style="border: 0; border-spacing:0; background: #000; font-family: monospace; font-weight: bold; font-size: 135%"
|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╗

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╗
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╔
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╝

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #FF0000; padding: 0"|X
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|║
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|-
|style="color: #07F; padding: 0"|≈
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╠
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|═
|style="color: #FFF; padding: 0"|╝
|style="color: #888; padding: 0"|+

|}
|}
'''X X''' = '''Pumps from south''' 
'''X''' = '''Floodgate''' 
'''* or *''' = '''Gear assembly'''

Math as follows: 
Water wheels generate: 90 power x 4 wheels = 360 power 
Gears consume: 5 power x 5 gears = 25 power 
Pumps consume: 10 power x 3 pumps = 30 power 
Net power produced: 305 power 
Assuming a windmill starter motor: 
Dead weight = (2 pump x 10) + (5 gears x 5) + (4 wheels x 10) = 85 power 
3 windmills at full output for 120 power or 5 at half output for 100 power. 
If you can't generate 85 units of wind power, add another lever to the middle of the top three gears to drop the load to 30 
 
If you think you're going to restart them often, consider a second independent water reactor running connected to the first, to enable them to jump start each other and avoid the dodgy windmills.. 
 
 
 
'''Some notes...''' 
 
The water source on the left of the lower two layers is the top of a larger lake. The retaining wall is there to contain the top layer. You may not need this wall, if you have other measures in place to properly control the level of the main body of water. 
 
The top layer of the construction, if you can arrange it, should probably be the first layer below ground. This has the advantage of letting you connect windmills, should you feel the need. I wouldn't recommend putting the gearing itself on the surface... I expect it to scream target at more destructive monsters. 
 
The red gear assemblies and floodgates are all connected to levers. I will be linking them all to separate levers, but this may be over kill for your situation. 
The upshot of this linking is that you can turn the output power on and off without closing down the pumps, drain or fill the various component sections for maintainance, or selectively disable waterwheels (maybe shutdown one to build an extension?) 
As I say, it may be overkill. 
Although the system is self contained, and thus shouldn't be too subject to overflows, you should still take the usual precautions with the levers... in case of mad dwarf disease ;)

Should this design prove functional to specs, I'll move it to the article. 
Should this design prove utterly borked up, I'll report back with revised plans.

[[Special:Contributions/89.238.157.212|89.238.157.212]] 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision 1: 
It has been pointed out to me that 1 pump is unlikely to handle the flow generated. Extra pumps and wheels added to ensure flow.
Additionally, think out how you intend to start this contraption if you want to build one. The plans leave the pumps inaccessible (for good reason on my map), so you can't manually start them or dump water in to get it going. I plan to use a windmill for a starter motor. 
Oh, and I fixed the questionable math :p 
[[Special:Contributions/89.238.157.212|89.238.157.212]] 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarven baseball

2010-06-29T04:11:37Z

Onul Rigothzas: Whoops... mixed up my brackets.

Not much content here, though amusing. Perhaps merge into [[Stupid dwarf trick]]? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 04:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarven baseball

2010-06-29T04:10:43Z

Onul Rigothzas: Created page with 'Not much content here, though amusing. Perhaps merge into {{Stupid dwarf trick}}? --~~~~'

Not much content here, though amusing. Perhaps merge into {{Stupid dwarf trick}}? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 04:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf Fortress Wiki talk:Quality

2010-06-29T03:47:50Z

Onul Rigothzas: Suggestion for neutral quality adjective

==Downgrade from Fine to Tattered==
Now that xTatteredx has been implemented, all of the -Fine- articles which are definitely not fine should be downgraded. I suggest we all go through a letter of the alphabet from [http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Category:DF2010:Fine_Quality_Articles here] and rate all the articles properly. I've already done so for letters A and B... 24 more to go. If you have extra info to add, don't hold back.

Go and rate!

: What's the difference between fine and tattered? At present you have the exact same criteria listed for both categories. --[[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 18:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::I had changed Tattered to be different from Fine, but VengefulDonut apparently disagreed and reverted them back to being identical. So Yeah. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Either you two didn't read them or we disagree over what the word identical means. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Okay, ''nearly'' identical. Out of the 5 properties on each one, 3 are the same. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Alright. What about this? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::: It's apparently been edited since I said something. I assure you it was identical when I posted, which was very confusing. --[[User:Doctorzuber|Doctorzuber]] 00:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::It wasn't identical, there was a slight difference. Too small but it was there. [[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 01:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

==Stone, gem and similar articles==
Any thoughts on how to rate these? Many of them seem to be tagged as stubs, but the stone template in particular seems to me to cover most of the salient information. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 20:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

:In my view, quality should be a reflection of the percentage of the total information about a given subject that exists. So if we're talking about non-special stones, there is very little information aside from their basic properties, colours, locations etc. Thus if an article encapsulates all of those, it should be rated fairly high quality. I can see that there could be an argument for adding like a little descriptive sentence on the page or something, but surely brevity and simplicity are features that suggest a higher quality of article. In addition, if you look at the current definition for Masterwork Quality articles, these basic stone articles are comprehensive on the subject, contain no unverified information, have an appropriate number of outbound links, do not have any redlinks and are properly categorized. The only feature I am not sure on is whether the links are in the right format, but I'd be willing to bet that it is. If that is the case, the only problem with them, and the only thing holding them back from being Masterwork (by the current definition) is the fact that they do not have multiple editors. Surely then, if we go through the pages and quickly check if the information is correct, we can then reclassify them as Masterwork. [[User:Pie|Pie]] 00:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

: Adding the real life information is just extraneous nonsense that doesn't help anything. Every mineral article has a link to the wikipedia page on the same subject already (in the side chart), we simply do not require a chemical formula and a crystal matrix diagram for every mineral on a wiki devoted to Dwarf Fortress gameplay.
: For vermin articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the economically important cave spider. For mineral articles, it makes sense to have a longer article for the rare and game specific adamantine. A D for Dwarf section for minerals like chert is simply unreasonable, and would take away from the specific purpose of the wiki, which is information first.
: All of the mineral articles fulfill the masterwork obligations. They are as comprehensive on the subject at hand as necessary, because this is a game, not a geology lesson. If players are interested in geology, they can find the information they need more effectively elsewhere. [[User:JohnnyMadhouse|JohnnyMadhouse]] 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

:It seems that rating these articles removes the gamedata properties. The template is in place, but the actual information (i.e. layer, melting point, boiling point, etc.) is gone. I'm not sure how to recover it. [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 00:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::What browser are you using? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Mozilla Firefox 3.6.3 [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 18:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
::I see that you've rated 2 stone pages (Chalk and Chert), and both of them are still showing all of the appropriate information. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Hmm. Going back they appear to have the information again. Maybe it just takes a little while to update it with the rating. [[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

:Well, I'm done fleshing out layer stones and vermin with descriptive phrases, and raised them all to ≡Exceptional≡ quality. I know the necessary information is there in the infoboxes and the raw files, but I would imagine newcomers to the game and wiki would appreciate an easy to read sentence or two giving a broad overview of the item in question. --[[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 01:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

:Okay, done trees and plants. Not sure what to do next. Probably any old skills not properly described. --[[User:Shadowfury333|Shadowfury333]] 21:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

==who rates those articles==
who rates those articles?
::I have been. If I shouldn't be, someone say so now. Also, should ~100% of content articles be rated? --[[User:StrongAxe|StrongAxe]] 18:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As there isn't much of a vandalism thing going on here, I think it should be the original author of the article who rates it, with some admin verification following--[[User:Smd|Smd]] 15:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Anyone and everyone should be rating the articles. Don't agree with an article rating? leave a note why on the talk page and re-rate the page in question. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 01:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:Anybody can rate an article, it's a wiki and we're ''supposed to'' all work together. Just try to correct or update anything that needs changing. If you spot vandalism, go to the '''history''' tab next to the discussion/edit tabs and revert the page to a pre-vandal version. [[Special:Contributions/97.90.193.201|97.90.193.201]] 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

== Changing levels ==
:There was a discussion [http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54970.msg1183319#msg1183319 on the forums] involving changing the quality levels to Fine, Exceptional, and Masterwork. Yes/no?--[[User:Draco18s|Draco18s]] 17:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::I think this is a great idea. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::I second. The forum thread linked above garnered broad support for -Fine-, +Exceptional+, *Masterwork* after discussing several options. -Grae
:::Agreed, with the quality modifiers in place, they're awesome for this wiki. I mean, what's more Dwarf Fortressy than having a good *article*? --[[User:Aescula|Aescula]] 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::Indeed, it seems to fit the game better rather than fit with common player perceptions of the races in game.[[User:Vattic|Vattic]] 20:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
::Although I think the Fine, Exceptional, Masterwork is a better grading scheme I have to question the need for more than two levels. Either an article doesn't have enough information (currently Elven) or it does (currently Human or Dwarven. The distinction between the top too levels is mostly in how it links to other articles which I think is a poor way to grade. For example you could make a Human article Dwarven by removing any red links or badly formed links but arguably this reduces the quality of the article itself. So I'd suggest just having a rating for poor pages and leaving good ones without any tag. --[[User:Shades|Shades]] 14:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::I think there is some value to pointing out articles that are not only accurate and full of all the information, but also easy to navigate within and between. Hence the distinction between what is good and great. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 16:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
::::But that is not what we are doing as by removing the links on a Human article you can end up with a Dwarven article. That is not a good reinforcement. --[[User:Shades|Shades]] 07:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::I added another category requirement for an Exceptional article now. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

== Template/method ==

I see that this was set up with different templates for each quality level. Is that really the best way to go? Couldn't instead of <nowiki> {{elven}} {{dwarven}} {{human}} </nowiki> could we do <nowiki> {{Quality|<low>}} {{Quality|<med>}} {{Quality|<high>}} </nowiki> (for whatever those three are)? Thoughts? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:That seems far more sensible to me. The three tags are now very confusing if you don't happen to have been around while the quality thing's been introduced. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 15:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
::I also agree - it would centralize the formatting rules, and even potentially allow people to set what kind of label they want to see. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 07:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Feel free to implement this if you feel so inclined. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 00:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Alright, I'll try to work on this tonight. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 19:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This started out as a project to point what needs fixing. Fine is a '''terrible''' name for the bottom quality rank. If you are hell-bent on driving the DF reference all the way, make the lowest rank XShoddyX [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:Also, the comments on the forums seem to be more objections than suggestions. Perhaps the original elven/human/dwarven ranking would work. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
::I'd also like to nitpick that the current labels, "-Fine-" "+Exceptional+" and "*Masterwork*", are wrong - they ''should'' be "+Fine+" "≡Exceptional≡" and "☼Masterwork☼". --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:I think the purpose of pointing to what needs fixing works just as fine regardless of names. Anyone who cliks those links (which anyone who wants to fix things on the wiki probably will) understand what fine pages need more work.
:I don't think elven/human/dwarven was any better at showing what needs improvement. While fine/exceptional/masterwork might not accurately measure the bottom level, at least it shows a gradient which elven/human/dwarven does not. I have no objection to bumping it to 4 levels (I think something LIKE stub could be there, shoddy isn't bad) that seems like a very good idea to me.
:Vengeful, I know there are a lot of objections but when asked for some suggestions this change seemed very highly requested. I simply implmented it because I agreed that "elven" doesn't really equal "bad" or even "worse then human".
:Yeah, Agreed Quiest, I'll change that. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

::We don't need more levels. We just need the labels for the current levels to match their purpose. The bottom level, which represents "needs improvement" articles, needs to have a tag that sounds '''bad'''. xTatteredx and xShoddyx would fit the current theme. Replacing it all with number ranks would solve it (say, level of magma). As long as the label doesn't directly conflict with the purpose of the category, the way fine does. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Sounds good, it was a little work to make sure the shift happened correctly. If you want to do the change to "Shoddy" or "Tattered" then cool, otherwise I'll maybe do it sometime this week. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Something a little negative about that, isn't there? "Stub" says 'this needs more adding to it' whereas "shoddy" says 'what's here isn't much cop'. I agree that "Fine" is probably a bit generous. Offhand, however, I don't have another suggestion for the lowest level.
::::There's probably an argument to make that the middle level would be better as "Fine" if the lowest is changed - I think there's a clearer distinction then between it and the top level. [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

::::I just noticed the addition of "xTATTEREDx". Now we have a brand new problem: There's absolutely nothing in between "poor" (tattered) and "good" (fine). We need something neutral. Poor - Neutral - Good - Great is a fine progression, but we don't have anything that sounds "neutral".[[User:G-Flex|G-Flex]] 07:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

::::::Yeah. Fine really isn't a neutral word. What would be a good replacement? [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::::How about Adequate (no -decorations-), to mirror the no-adjective change to skill levels? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 03:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::Well tbh fine is fine, not good, as in it's not bad but it isn't good either = neutral. Exceptional = good and Masterwork = great. I was in fact thinking that, rating-wise, Masterwork is really close to Exceptional, and Exceptional is pretty far away from Fine, so it would be a good idea to turn Fine into Well-crafted and Exceptional into Superior, to have them all 2 levels apart: Tattered(0), Well-crafted(2), Superior(4), Masterful(6... or 12). --[[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 12:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

==Quality categories by version namespace==

Is there a relatively simple way to view a list of, say, all DF2010 articles of Fine quality? If not, could there be? It would be quite handy for targeting articles to be improved. --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 03:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
:Doing so would require editing the {{tl|Quality}} template itself, though it might not be a bad idea. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 04:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
::I was thinking of doing that. We'll leave this here for a little so people can comment on it, but then if noone opposes I'll make the change. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::With this in place, would calculating the "Overall quality rating" for each version not be more useful? Either for each namespace or for each + the articles in the mainspace, maybe? [[User:Oddtwang of Dork|Oddtwang of Dork]] 21:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I've just updated the progress bar template to allow it to focus on a single namespace. 40d has a reasonably high rating, while 23a is way worse than even DF2010. I've also tweaked this Quality page to list the quality stats for all 3 namespaces - it's a bit busy, but the information should be useful. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::Looks great IMO, thanks! --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::My god, stats. Stats everywhere! I love it. Well done. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of the "Version:Quality" style categories on [[Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality|the quality page]]. Should those be added immediately, or are we waiting until we've reached a decision on if ratings will differ between versions? Because I would add them, but I don't want to screw things up. [[User:SenorPwnage|Señor Pwnage]] 02:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

==Drop in overall quality rating==
Why has the quality rating seen on the main page dropped so precipitously? It was at over 20% a week or two ago, now it is at 11%. Is this due to articles being rerated downward, or due to the hundreds of nearly-stub pages such as [[DF2010:Aquamarine]]? Has the calculation method changed? Or another cause? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
:Almost certainly the latter, and probably partially my fault - whenever I find a page that has no rating at all, I just give it a "Fine" rating so it at least has a rating ''at all'' - I'm of the opinion that it's better for a page to be underrated than completely unrated. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 21:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
::And I agree, the lowest rating should be applied to the worst articles. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 17:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Given that a bunch of the articles have been blindly categorized as "Fine", I'm going through and rerating a bunch of them as "Unrated" which will place them in a distinct category so other users can provide more accurate ratings. It would probably be beneficial to make the template recognize this rating and list it on this project page (and somehow include them on the progress bar thingy). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I'd suggest not doing that. Fine is currently the "bottom" rating. We can that name if we want, but having to go back and change unrated to "new bottom rating" will be a lot of unnecessary work, imo. Don't you think? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 22:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::"Unrated" was '''not''' intended to be a "new bottom rating", but a way of denoting that an article ''needs to be (re-)rated'' - since the intent is that every page (or at least all of those in the DF2010 namespace) should have a quality rating, it's useful to be able to explicitly categorize an article as needing a rating without having to rate the article yourself (for those who are very poor judges of quality). --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 22:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:I'm also rather shocked at the brutal re-rating of everything. Not one Masterwork article? Seriously? If everything's just going to end up in a morass of Fine, where Fine can be anything from a pointless stub to a half-decent, usable article, then the system really isn't helping. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::Ah - replying to my own post in case anyone else has the same confusion I did; the problem is that the links to the categories from the Quality page go to '''non-version specific''' categories of Fine, Exceptional, and Masterwork, and nothing is in those anymore. All articles are now of a quality rating specific to their own namespace, IE: [[:Category:DF2010:Masterwork Quality Articles]]. I still think rating is being too harsh, though, as there's only 3 masterwork right now and that seems low. --[[User:Krenn|Krenn]] 05:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I'll fix this. Also, the count is just how many articles are labeled masterwork, if you can find some other than those three that are masterwork, please label them such :). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 06:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
::::There are only 2!!! masterwork articles now for some reason. Don't know if the 3rd one deserved being downgraded or not, but this makes me kind of sad. We need to do something about all these "fine" articles which are anything but fine, and bump more-than-decent exceptional articles with some extra stuff to make them masterwork... guides maybe? I don't know. But I don't really like it. I'm trying to do stuff but I'm new (so I suck) and don't have time... the answer is for everyone to do small things and not let it to a few good members. --[[User:Speed112|Speed112]]

== Criteria ==

Currently, having a "substantial number of redlinks" is grounds for an article being rated as Fine. While this is okay for new pages, it's a bit unfair to articles in the 23a namespace, where most of the content is concrete but simply hasn't been imported from the Archive wiki yet. Should this distinguish between redlinks due to incorrect formatting versus redlinks due to pending creation of other pages? --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 19:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:I tend to think the rules should be ''substantially'' different in the 23a namespace, as it is essentially historical content being ported into the current wiki for reference purposes. So I would actually argue that 23a pages should not be rated at all, nor taken into account in the quality rating. Speaking of that, it used to be wiki policy to make minimal edits — don't these repeated ratings lead to extra entries in the page histories and extra disk space consumed? Or are the ratings handled thru a database entry maybe? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
::By that argument, should not 40d articles also be exempt from being rated? --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Disk space is not a concern. However, fine as the bottom rating of articles is not fine. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal: No ratings for 40d and 23a ==
Those parts of the wiki are mostly static (and hopefully generally complete) and increasingly of historic interest only. The way I understand the rating, it's mostly to show the ongoing process of completing a new version and telling a user how to evaluate an article.

We could alternatively introduce separate rating templates for 40d and 23a.. --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 21:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just alternate categories? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:Specifics of implementation aside, I think a ratings system that only counts current version and mainspace articles in the overall wiki score is a good idea. --[[User:FunkyWaltDogg|FunkyWaltDogg]] 00:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
::This is now implmented, the "score" is DF2010 only. Hohlenschreck, does this meet your ideas? Or do you not want labels on older articles at all? [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 06:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I think this is fine --[[User:Höhlenschreck|Höhlenschreck]] 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

== Quality is not updating itself ==

I've been testing something, and looking at a preview via edit, it shows a different quality than normal, like it's not updating the quality at all. I'm not sure if this is a bug, or as possible as a wiki can go. Any ideas as to why this is happening? --[[User:Hugna|Hugna]] 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
:The quality won't update itself automatically while you preview. From Recent Changes it looks like (maybe) there is now something which automatically updates rating based on some script? Interesting if that's the case. But it definitely won't have any impact while you are previewing (also not immediately after you save either). [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 11:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

:What do you mean by a different quality than normal? If you hit preview when on the edit page, it will show whatever quality tag is currently on the page. Also Mason, the rate script is just an easier method to add/update a quality tag -- shouldn't have anything to do with what he's talking about, I hope. [[user:Emi|Emi]] [[user_talk:Emi|[T]]] 11:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

== Difference between exceptional and masterwork ==

I've noticed there has been some talk about exceptionals/materworks over on the [[Black diamond]] page. I'm continuing the topic here, to have everything in centralised discussion... My two cents: I think "exceptional" should be the standard for an article that contains all in-game information. Masterworks should then be articles that for some reason exceed the standard value and add something extra - like guides (great example it the [[Cave spider]] page) or massive amounts of information organised in a convenient way (like the generic [[Tree]] page). I'm saying this mostly as a user, who expects masterworks to be something worth reading. Having masterworks that are basically just stubs (eg. the [[Black diamond]]) is very counterintuitive, even if nothing remains to be said.
Yes, I'm aware this would mean rearranging the quality criteria. --[[User:Markus cz|Markus cz]] 11:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. --[[User:Nahno|Nahno]] 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
::That's the way I view it too. Since we've now got xTatteredx for useless articles and +Fine+ for mediocre ones, putting ≡Exceptional≡ as "complete" and ☼Masterwork☼ as "over and beyond" seems appropriate. --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree, Masterwork articles need to be something particularly special. I don't think it's a problem if some articles, by their nature, may never be able to be "masterwork". [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::I just want to point out that if Exceptional is the goal, it should score as 100%, not 60%, in the math for the quality rating. (I think Fine should also be bumped upward from 30%, and Tattered bumped up from 0% to maybe 10%.) I won't make the change myself, as my last edit to the math was reversed. —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Your [http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php?title=Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Quality/rating&diff=prev&oldid=110861 last edit to the math] was reversed due to said change consisting of ''adding a random number from -30 to +40 to the rating'', as well as outright labeling it as "'''malicious'''". --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Do you have a point? —[[User:0x517A5D|0x517A5D]] 16:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::The point is, your suggested contribution here is useful. The addition of a random element to the rating value was not judged as useful. One was reverted, the other is very unlikely to be reverted unless another better idea comes along. --[[User:Briess|Briess]] 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
:::And there in lies the problem (perhaps the only among all the positives) of a rating system like this. It doesn't let you specifically point out impressive achievements without marking everything else as missing something. I mean it takes away the benefit of highlighting the best work we've (well, not really me, but other people) came up with as a group in order to assign a score. But I can't think of another way of doing it. [[User:Mason11987|Mason]] ([[User talk:Mason11987|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mason11987|C]]) 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

:Let's add the following requirement (or something along these lines) for an article to be considered masterwork:
:* This is enlightening.
:or maybe something like this:
:* All DF players should read this article.
:It would be good to have something that says the page is an important one, and not just a comprehensive one. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 05:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree. Maybe not specifically these criteria, but something along those lines. Masterwork articles should shine among other great articles (Exceptional) and be, indeed, masterwork.
::::Another idea would be to tweak the rating so that Exceptional articles are complete (100%) and Masterwork are complete with a spark of awesomeness. What I mean is that they should still count as 100% on the rating percentile, but there should be another counter of awesomeness which says how many Masterwork quality articles there are. [[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 10:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

v0.31:Walrus

2010-06-29T03:35:29Z

Onul Rigothzas: Mark humorous lore "D for Dwarf"

{{quality|Fine|07:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)}}
{{CreatureInfo v0.31
|name=Walrus
|symbol=W|color=6:0:0
|eyes=2|lung=6|heart=1|intestines=10|liver=3|tripe=3|sweetbread=1|spleen=1|kidney=2|fat=10|brain=3|skulls=1|skin=hide|meat=70|ivory=2|tooth=1|bones=12
|biome= * Arctic {{L|ocean}}
|contrib=no}}
{{av}}

:''A huge aquatic mammal with giant tusks and dense whiskers. They are thick and blubbery and live almost exclusively on mussels.''

===Lore===
{{D for Dwarf}}It is rumoured that eggmen can be sometimes found near walruses. This, however, is yet to be confirmed for DF.
{{gamedata}}
{{Creatures}}
{{Category|Animals}}

v0.31 Talk:Decoration

2010-06-26T11:55:03Z

Onul Rigothzas: /* Famous artifact is famous. */ new section

==Stone decorations?==
Artifacts and objects made by other civs can have stone decorations. Is that another thing which is not possible in fortress mode? --[[User:Niggy|Niggy]] 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:I've got an artifact coffer, made by a mason, who used four pieces of chert. It ended up with "encrusted", "adorned with rings", "menaces with spikes", and an "image of a large roach". So your artifacts can get stone decorations. Other civs don't trade artifacts to you. Their objects... um, elves do primarily wood decorations, and humans seem to prefer bone and such. My dwarves tend to stone, yes, but they also do gems and bone and metal.
:I'd thus assume it's dependent on your civilizations. They'll do decorations based on what they have available to them, with an emphasis on what substances they prefer. --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
::Now that I reread your question, I think I misunderstood the first time. No, you can't put stone decorations on things. Artifacts may end up with stone decorations, but there's currently no way for you to deliberately put stone on items. Kinda makes sense, given that stones are, well, big enough to carve whole tables and doors out of. --[[User:DeMatt|DeMatt]] 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
==Do traffic costs affect the 'closeness' of objects for decoration?==
<blockquote>You cannot specify a specific object for a dwarf to decorate. Dwarves will use the closest suitable object.</blockquote>
Is that the closest suitable object after adjusting for [[traffic]] costs, or are traffic costs ignored?

== Famous artifact is famous. ==

During the first winter at one of my forts, my carpenter got a [[strange mood|wild hair up her nethers]] and produced a three-log [[artifact]] [[barrel]]. Word must have traveled fast, because the next dwarven [[caravan]] that arrived had a (≡«-topaz scepter-»≡) decorated with, among other things, an image of said barrel... including the cheese held within and its identifying number in my stockpiles. Bug? --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 11:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Combat drill

2010-06-23T10:45:40Z

Onul Rigothzas: Create redirect to 'Combat drills'

#REDIRECT [[DF2010:Combat drills]]

v0.31:Iron man

2010-06-22T09:51:03Z

Onul Rigothzas: Mark humorous lore "D for Dwarf"

{{CreatureInfo v0.31|name=Iron man|symbol=M|color=0:0:1
|butcher=no
|biome= * Subterranean {{L|cavern}}
|wiki=no
}}
{{av}}{{Quality|Fine}}

:''A man-shaped creature made of iron.''

Man shaped and the same average size as a adult human. Usually, if not always, leaves behind masterwork statues of random things such as werewolves or marlins. Emits some kind of corrosive or poisonous gas which causes a condition called "Iron man Cough". This disease is very slow to become effective (takes several in game hours) compared to most venom and is marked by coughing up blood. Sleeping seems to cure the disease.

===Creature behavior and origin===
{{D for Dwarf}}Surprisingly, the Iron Man does not deplete your fortress {{L|alcohol|booze}} supplies. On rare occasions humans who exhibit strange moods may sometimes [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfWPDzvWNds turn into one of these].

{{gamedata}}
{{Creatures}}
{{Category|Humanoids}}

v0.31 Talk:Metal

2010-06-22T07:42:46Z

Onul Rigothzas: /* grumble */

== Field Observations ==

It seems true that materials can't cut anything "tougher" than them. Fights between my small iron-armoured military and Goblins last for ages, since my iron axes mostly bounce off the Goblins' iron armour and the Goblins' copper & silver weapons can't get through my iron armour. Iron pikes have penetrated iron armour, and are th weapons that most consistently do so (logical, since the highest force is being applied in one place). IRON ARMOUR IS NOW INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

Also, on a more theoretical note, the higher impact elasticity and shear elasticity of stel will be counteracted by much higher fracture toughness/strengh. Having a dent put in your breastplate that bruises you is much better than having your breastplate fractured and getting a pike in the ribs.--[[User:Nimblewright|Nimblewright]] 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

----

Despite having copper, bismuth, and tin, I can't seem to make bismuth bronze. Despite having copper, gold, and silver I can't seem to make black bronze - are these broken or merely different? --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 09:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
:Nevermind, my smelters were slower than i thought, and they'd only smelted 1 copper total so far. *cracks whip* get back to work you lazy bums! --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 10:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

----

''Impact elasticity: Used for blunt-force combat; lower is better. This is the raw value.''
:How sure are we about this? It seems to contradict: [[DF2010:Release_information|"Force from blunt weapons can transcend layers. For instance, a hammer can bruise the skin while breaking the bone underneath. As such, plate armor's benefits are generally ignored by blunt attacks, and leather armor would prove to be more effective." ]] Leather as a material has a Impact Elasticity of 5000 meaning, I think, that it is much more elastic... --[[Special:Contributions/68.117.74.40|68.117.74.40]] 14:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

::The Impact Elasticity number is based on the real life bulk modulus. The higher the number the greater the pressure that is needed to compress a material a given volume, that is it is the resistance to compressibility. Intuitively, we would think that we would want a higher rather than lower number for something like a war hammer or maul so they act less like a rubber mallet and more like a hammer. However, we don't know exactly how Impact Elasticity is used and unless we do we can't draw any conclusions about it. It would seem a little odd if it is a critical factor in a weapon as in real life it is rarely used except in gas equations as the effect is generally small for solids. Usually about 1% or less at yield strength for the metals in DF. EDIT: Just to be clear, impact elasticity shares an inverse like relationship with bulk modulus so lower "should be" better.--[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 04:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I think this is more a question of how accurate the quote from the release info page is -- which is oriented towards how effectively armor can resist/absorb blunt damage before it effects the wearer. The quote suggests that leather armor would be more effective than 'plate' (metal I suppose). Let's assume that's true. While we don't know how the actual combat calculations work we can observe values the calculations use. The impact values are said to be specific to blunt damage so it's a good bet where the value that makes leather better against blunt damage is. Comparing material templates between various armor capable metals and leather, the value that stands out the most is impact elasticity (all metals have the same impact fracture/yield >> leather, which makes sense as leather isn't as durable). Impact elasticity is 635 for iron with most other metals being in that ball park and it is actually 50000 for leather. Climbing out on the branches of the speculation tree, the hypothesis is ''greater elasticity reduces blunt damage directly or disrupts ability of blunt damage to transmit to multiple tissue layers''. Alas, a brief test of 50+ combats in the arena shows that one's dwarves might as well be naked when wearing leather against iron hammers/maces. Iron plate (and even mail as the dwarves had to wear shirts to keep their fragile, fragile upper arms in one piece) armor proved to be quite effective with almost every blow simply deflecting. So it seems that leather armor is not better than iron plate when it comes to blunt damage... at least in this specific case. --[[User:Deranged Imp|Deranged Imp]] 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately, much more testing is needed. There are four different elements of the game that are being tested. The wound system, the armor system, the weapon system, and the material system. We know that there are deficiencies in the wound system and severe imbalance in the weapon system so it stands to reason that the same is true of armor system so tests on the material system are hideously complicated. Suppose that the intent is for leather armor to act as an under-layer buffer with metal mail or plate as the over-layer, but for whatever reason the proportions in the armor raws are limiting the material effectiveness. Measuring the effectiveness of weapons in attacking and armor in defending is complicated because the only way to do that is by interpreting a wound system which doesn't always seem to reflect the extend of the damage done. Especially if the target has [NOPAIN], [NOSICK], and doesn't bleed. You can pretty much forget about it killing something if it doesn't bleed as that is seemingly the primary mode of death right now. Thankfully, arena mode makes tests like this MUCH easier to do than in prior versions. However, it still requires a lot of effort. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

== Material Value vs. Material Multiplier ==

Is there a reason it's Value instead of [[Item_value#Material_multipliers|Material Multiplier]]?
It seems a bit inconsistent to me.
[[User:Kiraen|Kiraen]] 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
'''Bold text'''

:I think this is a terminology question that might be more appropriate in the discussion page you linked. In fact, I am sure that is what this is. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 04:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

== Bronze is the new steel? ==

From the table, it looks like bronze is 'better' than steel for blunt weapons, and maybe almost as good for bladed ones? Am I reading this right? Can someone with more DF/Science knowledge make a chart for the rest of us that lists the metals from best to worst in terms of a) Bladed weapons, b) Blunt weapons, and c) Armor? That would be nice, because that chart now is informative, but not, er, helpful. --[[User:Zombiejustice|Zombiejustice]] 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:Well Mr. mysteriouspersonwhoforgotto[http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal#Z signhisnamelikezoro], that seems like a reasonable request. I will see what I can do. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops! Embarassing. And thank you.

:::I put a table with guidelines for what is better for what. Unfortunately, in the case of blunt attacks, there is generally very little discernible difference between one metal and another. More testing needs to be conducted for finer granularity, I am afraid. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 02:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Does anyone have an idea what materials are best for bolts now? They do piercing damage, so I suppose it is like cutting (steel rules), but the kinetic energy they have may be dependent on the density (the bigger is the mass the less is the impact of air friction and so on, he-he). --[[User:Snus-mumrik|Snus-mumrik]] 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Bolts and other missiles behave somewhat oddly. The mechanics behind them work on some interpretation of the kinetic energy formula, F=(m*v^2)/2, where the bow and wielder provide the potential energy that is converted to the kinetic energy of the missile in the form of velocity. The problem with this is, for something that weighs next to nothing like Adamantine, the velocity becomes unrealistically large(like approaching or exceeding the sound barrier) which breaks the assumption that friction is negligible. To prevent this from happening Toady put velocity limits in the raws for the missiles that prevent that assumptions from being broken. The end result is the best materials for missiles roughly follows the edge weapon scale with the exception of Adamantine which is dead last. I will see what I can do to the table to get it to reflect this. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== grumble ==

It would be nice to have the option of making hammers or maces from rose gold, and to save a little fuel & labor by making bismuth bronze from 2 bronze + copper + bismuth. Oh, well. – [[template:unsigned|unsigned]] comment by [[User:216.27.178.205|216.27.178.205]]
:1: Sign your comments ("<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>"). 2: If you really want to, edit reaction_standard.txt and inorganic_metal.txt. 3: Platinum would be even better than rose gold, being denser ''and'' having much lower impact elasticity. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
: While you're at it, why not allow cutting nickel with brass to yield nickel silver, or other similar alloy "chain reactions"? Might make for an interesting micro-mod. --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 07:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

v0.31 Talk:Metal

2010-06-22T07:34:52Z

Onul Rigothzas: /* grumble */

== Field Observations ==

It seems true that materials can't cut anything "tougher" than them. Fights between my small iron-armoured military and Goblins last for ages, since my iron axes mostly bounce off the Goblins' iron armour and the Goblins' copper & silver weapons can't get through my iron armour. Iron pikes have penetrated iron armour, and are th weapons that most consistently do so (logical, since the highest force is being applied in one place). IRON ARMOUR IS NOW INCREDIBLY USEFUL.

Also, on a more theoretical note, the higher impact elasticity and shear elasticity of stel will be counteracted by much higher fracture toughness/strengh. Having a dent put in your breastplate that bruises you is much better than having your breastplate fractured and getting a pike in the ribs.--[[User:Nimblewright|Nimblewright]] 13:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

----

Despite having copper, bismuth, and tin, I can't seem to make bismuth bronze. Despite having copper, gold, and silver I can't seem to make black bronze - are these broken or merely different? --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 09:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
:Nevermind, my smelters were slower than i thought, and they'd only smelted 1 copper total so far. *cracks whip* get back to work you lazy bums! --[[User:Squirrelloid|Squirrelloid]] 10:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

----

''Impact elasticity: Used for blunt-force combat; lower is better. This is the raw value.''
:How sure are we about this? It seems to contradict: [[DF2010:Release_information|"Force from blunt weapons can transcend layers. For instance, a hammer can bruise the skin while breaking the bone underneath. As such, plate armor's benefits are generally ignored by blunt attacks, and leather armor would prove to be more effective." ]] Leather as a material has a Impact Elasticity of 5000 meaning, I think, that it is much more elastic... --[[Special:Contributions/68.117.74.40|68.117.74.40]] 14:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

::The Impact Elasticity number is based on the real life bulk modulus. The higher the number the greater the pressure that is needed to compress a material a given volume, that is it is the resistance to compressibility. Intuitively, we would think that we would want a higher rather than lower number for something like a war hammer or maul so they act less like a rubber mallet and more like a hammer. However, we don't know exactly how Impact Elasticity is used and unless we do we can't draw any conclusions about it. It would seem a little odd if it is a critical factor in a weapon as in real life it is rarely used except in gas equations as the effect is generally small for solids. Usually about 1% or less at yield strength for the metals in DF. EDIT: Just to be clear, impact elasticity shares an inverse like relationship with bulk modulus so lower "should be" better.--[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 04:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

:::I think this is more a question of how accurate the quote from the release info page is -- which is oriented towards how effectively armor can resist/absorb blunt damage before it effects the wearer. The quote suggests that leather armor would be more effective than 'plate' (metal I suppose). Let's assume that's true. While we don't know how the actual combat calculations work we can observe values the calculations use. The impact values are said to be specific to blunt damage so it's a good bet where the value that makes leather better against blunt damage is. Comparing material templates between various armor capable metals and leather, the value that stands out the most is impact elasticity (all metals have the same impact fracture/yield >> leather, which makes sense as leather isn't as durable). Impact elasticity is 635 for iron with most other metals being in that ball park and it is actually 50000 for leather. Climbing out on the branches of the speculation tree, the hypothesis is ''greater elasticity reduces blunt damage directly or disrupts ability of blunt damage to transmit to multiple tissue layers''. Alas, a brief test of 50+ combats in the arena shows that one's dwarves might as well be naked when wearing leather against iron hammers/maces. Iron plate (and even mail as the dwarves had to wear shirts to keep their fragile, fragile upper arms in one piece) armor proved to be quite effective with almost every blow simply deflecting. So it seems that leather armor is not better than iron plate when it comes to blunt damage... at least in this specific case. --[[User:Deranged Imp|Deranged Imp]] 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately, much more testing is needed. There are four different elements of the game that are being tested. The wound system, the armor system, the weapon system, and the material system. We know that there are deficiencies in the wound system and severe imbalance in the weapon system so it stands to reason that the same is true of armor system so tests on the material system are hideously complicated. Suppose that the intent is for leather armor to act as an under-layer buffer with metal mail or plate as the over-layer, but for whatever reason the proportions in the armor raws are limiting the material effectiveness. Measuring the effectiveness of weapons in attacking and armor in defending is complicated because the only way to do that is by interpreting a wound system which doesn't always seem to reflect the extend of the damage done. Especially if the target has [NOPAIN], [NOSICK], and doesn't bleed. You can pretty much forget about it killing something if it doesn't bleed as that is seemingly the primary mode of death right now. Thankfully, arena mode makes tests like this MUCH easier to do than in prior versions. However, it still requires a lot of effort. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

== Material Value vs. Material Multiplier ==

Is there a reason it's Value instead of [[Item_value#Material_multipliers|Material Multiplier]]?
It seems a bit inconsistent to me.
[[User:Kiraen|Kiraen]] 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
'''Bold text'''

:I think this is a terminology question that might be more appropriate in the discussion page you linked. In fact, I am sure that is what this is. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 04:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

== Bronze is the new steel? ==

From the table, it looks like bronze is 'better' than steel for blunt weapons, and maybe almost as good for bladed ones? Am I reading this right? Can someone with more DF/Science knowledge make a chart for the rest of us that lists the metals from best to worst in terms of a) Bladed weapons, b) Blunt weapons, and c) Armor? That would be nice, because that chart now is informative, but not, er, helpful. --[[User:Zombiejustice|Zombiejustice]] 17:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

:Well Mr. mysteriouspersonwhoforgotto[http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Dwarf_Fortress_Wiki:Community_Portal#Z signhisnamelikezoro], that seems like a reasonable request. I will see what I can do. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

::Whoops! Embarassing. And thank you.

:::I put a table with guidelines for what is better for what. Unfortunately, in the case of blunt attacks, there is generally very little discernible difference between one metal and another. More testing needs to be conducted for finer granularity, I am afraid. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 02:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

::::Does anyone have an idea what materials are best for bolts now? They do piercing damage, so I suppose it is like cutting (steel rules), but the kinetic energy they have may be dependent on the density (the bigger is the mass the less is the impact of air friction and so on, he-he). --[[User:Snus-mumrik|Snus-mumrik]] 17:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

:::::Bolts and other missiles behave somewhat oddly. The mechanics behind them work on some interpretation of the kinetic energy formula, F=(m*v^2)/2, where the bow and wielder provide the potential energy that is converted to the kinetic energy of the missile in the form of velocity. The problem with this is, for something that weighs next to nothing like Adamantine, the velocity becomes unrealistically large(like approaching or exceeding the sound barrier) which breaks the assumption that friction is negligible. To prevent this from happening Toady put velocity limits in the raws for the missiles that prevent that assumptions from being broken. The end result is the best materials for missiles roughly follows the edge weapon scale with the exception of Adamantine which is dead last. I will see what I can do to the table to get it to reflect this. --[[User:PencilinHand|PencilinHand]] 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

== grumble ==

It would be nice to have the option of making hammers or maces from rose gold, and to save a little fuel & labor by making bismuth bronze from 2 bronze + copper + bismuth. Oh, well. – [[template:unsigned|unsigned]] comment by [[User:216.27.178.205|216.27.178.205]]
:1: Sign your comments ("<nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki>"). 2: If you really want to, edit reaction_standard.txt and inorganic_metal.txt. 3: Platinum would be even better than rose gold, being denser ''and'' having much lower impact elasticity. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 16:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
:1: While you're at it, why not allow cutting nickel with brass to yield nickel silver, or other similar alloy "chain reactions"? Might make for an interesting micro-mod. --[[User:Onul Rigothzas|Onul Rigothzas]] 07:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)