- 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.
Difference between revisions of "User talk:Quietust"
m (→statues) |
|||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
: Most of the other metal are alloy I presume, so impossible to use the raw stone. --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | : Most of the other metal are alloy I presume, so impossible to use the raw stone. --[[User:Karl|Karl]] 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
::No, that would be "possible", not "more efficient". Q is thinking that it's because the value is the same, for both ore/alloy and metal. He's not exactly right, because copper can be made into several alloys that ''would'' improve it, and other metal ores ''rely'' on becoming alloys - if you're not going to make [[nickel silver]], then [[garnierite]] falls into that category too. But for the other 4, there is no possible value advantage to smelting into bars first, and then using ''three'' bars to make statues that are worth exactly the same as the one from 1 ore. (Unless your Blacksmith is considerably more skilled than your Mason, which is a stretch to begin with.) Probably should change that to something a bit less absolute.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | ::No, that would be "possible", not "more efficient". Q is thinking that it's because the value is the same, for both ore/alloy and metal. He's not exactly right, because copper can be made into several alloys that ''would'' improve it, and other metal ores ''rely'' on becoming alloys - if you're not going to make [[nickel silver]], then [[garnierite]] falls into that category too. But for the other 4, there is no possible value advantage to smelting into bars first, and then using ''three'' bars to make statues that are worth exactly the same as the one from 1 ore. (Unless your Blacksmith is considerably more skilled than your Mason, which is a stretch to begin with.) Probably should change that to something a bit less absolute.--[[User:Albedo|Albedo]] 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::Yeah, that's what I meant - there's no point in ever making a statue out of copper/silver/gold/platinum/aluminum bars when you can make it out of the native stone instead (which, in those cases, has the same value). Most metal ores are worth less than the metals themselves, though for the really cheap ones (like copper, nickel, tin, lead, and zinc) you'd be better off making the statue out of flux. --[[User:Quietust|Quietust]] 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:08, 29 September 2009
Quietust (Talk | contribs) (actual character)
Actually, there is no single "actual character" for a bottomless pit - there are two "default" sets of icons for vanilla DF, the ascii and the included tile set. The character I get is like a very thick capital O, but a little boxy. It's certainly not a "o". --Albedo 21:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful, *now* I found out there's a second purple stone after having already made a giant rose gold tomb... I guess I should of looked closer first, man was that a waste of gold. Shardok 01:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- To be fair, you can usually find gold nuggets in much larger quantities than bismuthinite (since the latter only occurs in small clusters)... --Quietust 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I had such better uses for it, like making coins. Yes, we definitely needed more coins. But I know I had found far more bismuthinite on that map than I had gold, then again, I was turning the bismuthinite into bismuth bronze, so I wasn't going to give that up any time soon either. Honestly I should of just not made a giant purple tomb. Shardok 04:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Holy crap! That aluminum=platinum is huge! I had been playing all this time just assuming that aluminum was cheap (since it is in the real world.) Is there any way we can make this bigger? Noobs need to know about this.
no soap?
Soap needs an alchemist's lab, which needs 3 glass flasks - Are those ever available from caravans? I thought "No, so no sand = no flasks = no lab = no soap" - no? Never spec needed glass flasks from caravans, so dunno.--Albedo 21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's fairly well known that you cannot request glass or sand from caravans, so yep - no sand == no soap. --Quietust 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
crop table
I didn't redesign the table. I brought back a previous design since the recent one was too obscure. VengefulDonut 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Alluvial vs soil
Good find. VengefulDonut 01:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
salt water
the above paragraph already explains how to verify whether or not it is drinkable)
Yes, but it doesn't emphasize the need to not assume you did it correctly. That line was not a redundant "how to", but "make sure you do". The whole issue of a well that was non-drinkable (which worries me as well, re your recent edit) was that the player did not pay close attention.--Albedo 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've readded a statement to basically advise double-checking, though my own testing revealed that a built well works fine for thirsty dwarves, whether from a murky pool or right at the shore itself. It's possible that it's the Z-level of the well that determines whether or not it works - placing a well in an underground cistern might not work as well as one placed on the surface... --Quietust 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
statues
Why would it only be more efficient with copper, silver, gold, platinum, and aluminum ? --Birthright 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the other metal are alloy I presume, so impossible to use the raw stone. --Karl 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, that would be "possible", not "more efficient". Q is thinking that it's because the value is the same, for both ore/alloy and metal. He's not exactly right, because copper can be made into several alloys that would improve it, and other metal ores rely on becoming alloys - if you're not going to make nickel silver, then garnierite falls into that category too. But for the other 4, there is no possible value advantage to smelting into bars first, and then using three bars to make statues that are worth exactly the same as the one from 1 ore. (Unless your Blacksmith is considerably more skilled than your Mason, which is a stretch to begin with.) Probably should change that to something a bit less absolute.--Albedo 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I meant - there's no point in ever making a statue out of copper/silver/gold/platinum/aluminum bars when you can make it out of the native stone instead (which, in those cases, has the same value). Most metal ores are worth less than the metals themselves, though for the really cheap ones (like copper, nickel, tin, lead, and zinc) you'd be better off making the statue out of flux. --Quietust 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, that would be "possible", not "more efficient". Q is thinking that it's because the value is the same, for both ore/alloy and metal. He's not exactly right, because copper can be made into several alloys that would improve it, and other metal ores rely on becoming alloys - if you're not going to make nickel silver, then garnierite falls into that category too. But for the other 4, there is no possible value advantage to smelting into bars first, and then using three bars to make statues that are worth exactly the same as the one from 1 ore. (Unless your Blacksmith is considerably more skilled than your Mason, which is a stretch to begin with.) Probably should change that to something a bit less absolute.--Albedo 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)