v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "40d Talk:Engraver"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::The thing about engravers is that for the most part they advance in skill quickly on their own, unless you have very little stone or ice in your fortress. So getting a legendary engraver through a strange mood is a bit of a waste, considering there are some skills that are harder and more time consuming to train (like glassmaking and metalsmithing skills). | :::The thing about engravers is that for the most part they advance in skill quickly on their own, unless you have very little stone or ice in your fortress. So getting a legendary engraver through a strange mood is a bit of a waste, considering there are some skills that are harder and more time consuming to train (like glassmaking and metalsmithing skills). | ||
[[User:Bouchart|Bouchart]] 13:58, 27 February 2008 (EST) | [[User:Bouchart|Bouchart]] 13:58, 27 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: Read again, ''carefully''. Among other things, the grammar is mangled. I can only guess the intended meaning: If you have spare dwarves, let them pump, not engrave, cos a legendary pump operator is more valuable. But the intention of the writer is not clear. Also: why pump operator? You don't necessarily have a setup where you can pump away without undesired consequences. And who uses manual pumping anyway with the beautiful and efficient machinery available? --[[User:Koltom|Koltom]] 17:07, 27 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:07, 27 February 2008
"This may not be desirable since a number of other valuable skills that are harder to train. In such cases, consider pump operating an alternative."
what are you trying to tell us? --Koltom 21:44, 26 February 2008 (EST)
- Full paragraph quote:
- However, if engraving is a dwarf's highest skill, it is likely that if that dwarf enters and completes a strange mood, then the dwarf will reach legendary status in engraving. This may not be desirable since a number of other valuable skills that are harder to train. In such cases, consider pump operating an alternative.
- Makes perfect sense to me. "This" refers to conclusion of the previous sentance. Your moody engravers become legendary engravers (which im not sure is accurate for most recent vers; bears testing). So less engravers = less wasted moods. VengefulDonut 00:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- What's so bad about legenday engraver? Really helps kill those sadness streaks dwarves get when friends die -
- Quoted from the forums:
- Dwarf 1:woe is me, my best friend the military champion died and he's gone and rotted away in the air :(
- Dwarf 2:Hey did you see that new legendary dining room with all the masterpiece engravings and exceptional aluminium chairs and tables?
- Dwarf 1:Hey was I sad before oh well I'm happy now :D
- Quoted from the forums:
- --Frostedfire 07:06, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- The thing about engravers is that for the most part they advance in skill quickly on their own, unless you have very little stone or ice in your fortress. So getting a legendary engraver through a strange mood is a bit of a waste, considering there are some skills that are harder and more time consuming to train (like glassmaking and metalsmithing skills).
Bouchart 13:58, 27 February 2008 (EST)
- Read again, carefully. Among other things, the grammar is mangled. I can only guess the intended meaning: If you have spare dwarves, let them pump, not engrave, cos a legendary pump operator is more valuable. But the intention of the writer is not clear. Also: why pump operator? You don't necessarily have a setup where you can pump away without undesired consequences. And who uses manual pumping anyway with the beautiful and efficient machinery available? --Koltom 17:07, 27 February 2008 (EST)