Dwarf Fortress Bug Tracker - Dwarf Fortress
View Issue Details
0001676Dwarf FortressDwarf Mode -- Jobs, Designationspublic2010-05-01 10:582010-06-09 06:46
The Architect 
Footkerchief 
hightweakalways
closedduplicate 
0.31.03 
 
0001676: Legendary dwarves handicap themselves when mining
Dwarves receive penalties to mining efficiency from being drowsy, thirsty, or hungry. They will continue mining (and thus ruining good materials) while drowsy, thirsty, or hungry. Legendary dwarves ruin good ore veins and gems.

I can't see how anyone would want their dwarves to continue acquiring mining jobs when they are not fit to do them. At least having the ability to disable this would be acceptable. Right now, the only options are to disable mining or remove designations.
Designate a large number of mining jobs for a legendary miner. Watch as his/her efficiency drops off while becoming drowsy, thirsty, and hungry, but miner insists on continuing work and ruining raw materials.
No tags attached.
duplicate of 0000008resolved Toady One Dwarves voluntarily work until hungry/thirsty/starving/dehydrated, get bad thoughts, can even die (and make low-quality stuff) 
Issue History
2010-05-01 10:58The ArchitectNew Issue
2010-05-01 11:06QuietustNote Added: 0005828
2010-05-01 11:36KagusNote Added: 0005831
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefNote Added: 0005836
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefRelationship addedduplicate of 0000008
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefStatusnew => resolved
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefResolutionopen => duplicate
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefAssigned To => Footkerchief
2010-05-01 12:14FootkerchiefNote Edited: 0005836bug_revision_view_page.php?bugnote_id=0005836#r2163
2010-06-09 06:46Toady OneStatusresolved => closed

Notes
(0005828)
Quietust   
2010-05-01 11:06   
Duplicate of 0000008.
(0005831)
Kagus   
2010-05-01 11:36   
I'd hesitate to call this a duplicate. Related, certainly, but this is more about the lessened quality of work done by starving/dehydrated dwarves, rather than the hunger/thirst itself.
(0005836)
Footkerchief   
2010-05-01 12:14   
There was already a some discussion about this in the comments, though -- see 0000008:0004815. Having a separate line of discussion here wouldn't be productive at this point.