Jump to content

Realistic Hearthfire recipes


Recommended Posts

A double door should require four hinges, eight nails, one lock, two fittings and two or four sawn logs.  Each set of double doors (2, or 3) should use multiples of the single double door. 

But, as far as I can tell, precious few of the recipes in the Hearthfire DLC make sense.  So what's the big deal about doors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Scythe Bearer said:

Each set of double doors (2, or 3) should use multiples of the single double door. 

As already documented in the tracker (and UESP):

The entry hall to the main hall is one double door. Recipe is "Iron Fittings, Sawn Log, Lock, 2 Hinge, 2 Nails". Why does an interior door needs a lock? Has no handle, no key. Fittings should be enough.

Two double doors is "2 Iron Fittings, 2 Sawn Log, 2 Lock, 4 Hinge, 4 Nails", as seen for Kitchen and Greenhouse. No reason for locks either....

Three double doors: "3 Iron Fittings, 3 Sawn Log, 3 Lock, 6 Hinge, 6 Nails". In some of these cases, the third door is exterior, so one lock is reasonable.

Thus, the current recipes are correct multiples. They just aren't very realistic.

The Alchemy wing currently has the 3 double door recipe, but only has 2 double doors. So it should be fixed.

As the doors are fixed, should the recipes be more realistic? Or just do minimal fixes to make them more self-consistent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put my two cents in.  In the case of the Alchemy wing that has only two double doors, but is using the 3 double door recipe, that might be something that should be fixed, as it would seem likely to be an error by Bethesda that was just not corrected - something that was missed while checking (a common thing with any game, regardless of the complexity).  However, as to adjusting recipes to make them more "realistic," that goes beyond the mandate of the patch - there is no indication that the numbers that were used were an actual error, and to change something based upon an interpretation of what might be a "better" or more "realistic" fit, based solely upon individual interpretation of what would seem to be more realistic, becomes a matter of no longer bug fixing, but, rather, reimagining based upon personal interpretation and preferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason I brought up the formula for the reported bug is because neither the proposed fix nor what Bethesda has set now is correct for what you're actually building at that phase of things.

You have 2 double doors being constructed. Each door should take at minimum 2 hinge assemblies, 4 nails (2 for each set of hinges), 1 sawn log, and probably 4 iron fittings. Though I don't honestly know where those come into this.

Then you'd have one lock for each pair of doors since you're obviously not going to have a lock on each side.

In the end though I kind of wonder if it's worth the bother since loads of other things also have weird formulas.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Arthmoor said:

The main reason I brought up the formula for the reported bug is because neither the proposed fix nor what Bethesda has set now is correct for what you're actually building at that phase of things.

You have 2 double doors being constructed. Each door should take at minimum 2 hinge assemblies, 4 nails (2 for each set of hinges), 1 sawn log, and probably 4 iron fittings. Though I don't honestly know where those come into this.

Then you'd have one lock for each pair of doors since you're obviously not going to have a lock on each side.

In the end though I kind of wonder if it's worth the bother since loads of other things also have weird formulas.

 

Personally, Arthmoor, I would say it is not worth the bother - because, as you say, plenty of other things have weird formulas, so where do you draw the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we have a consensus on both sides: it's not worth making more realistic, because plenty of other things have weird formulas.

But using three door formulas is not appropriate for only two pairs of double doors.

15 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

Each door should take at minimum 2 hinge assemblies, 4 nails (2 for each set of hinges), 1 sawn log, and probably 4 iron fittings.

Display cases with a "hinge" likely have a pair of hinges, one on each side of the glass. Of course, that could be a single long strip piano hinge. Each door could also use a piano hinge.

Likewise, 1 "nails" is really many nails (more like a box of nails), enough to make 10 boxes of nails from each ingot (10 individual nails would be more like rail or tent spikes). Otherwise, how in the world would you build 4 walls with only 8 "nails"? Or an entire roof with only 10 "nails"?

And 1 "nails" per "hinge" is fairly consistent in the formulae. A dozen or so nails on a piano hinge wouid make some sense, while 12 or 18 screws is fairly standard for hanging each modern door.

Moreover, the "iron fittings" are just miscellaneous parts: door handles, latch, strike plate, etc. One set is enough for each pair of double doors. One set is enough for a pair of wall sconces, or a dresser, or a hanging rack.

16 hours ago, Arthmoor said:

Then you'd have one lock for each pair of doors since you're obviously not going to have a lock on each side.

Finally, we agree that one lock is enough for each pair of double doors. The only question is why have locks on non-locking interior doors?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, in all the years I've played Skyrim over thousands of hours, I've never once given a thought to the recipes used in Hearfire construction.  And in all the thousands of hours I've spent helping in the Steam forums, I've never once read a post about door recipes, either (and I read every post that is made every day - so it's not a case that I may have missed one) - this is literally the first time I have ever seen the topic broached.  I think this is a case of just leave it alone as not being worth the time that has been spent even discussing it.  Perhaps it is not 100% realistically accurate - but then, in real world construction, I've seen a lot of strange things - I've seen doors attached to frames using anywhere from 2 to 4 hinges, and hinges attached to door and frame using anywhere from 4 to 8 screws - and I have seen locks on interior doors (though usually of the doorknob variety - but remember seeing ones requiring keys on dp,r older homes).  So, while the patch should fix errors (whether obvious ones or not), delving into something that is so trivial as this - and which can be explained away in any variety of ways, is the type of thing not worth bothering with - it is not a bug, it does not affect gameplay, it does not even raise cries of outrage amongst the masses; it is, really, an interpretation of how one particular thing is done.  One could argue that the continual giving of experience for repeatedly making something as simple as nails or other Hearthfire items is more of a significant factor that unbalances play significantly by causing the player to level up - and as a game designer that is something that I would probably have set to not give experience for - but it was design decision made by the developers - so not a bug, either.

I think that if some individuals really think that the recipes should be different, then that is something more properly addressed by an individual making a mod that does so - or an individual editing the records in xEdit to their taste, rather than something that should be addressed by the Patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/17/2022 at 11:26 AM, smr1957 said:

in all the years I've played Skyrim over thousands of hours, I've never once given a thought to the recipes used in Hearfire construction.

I'm more of a detail person. A formula matching those of 3 doors yielding only 2 doors bugs me. A formula saying "Wall Shelves (4)" yielding only 3 shelves bugs me.

That attention to detail is why I've spent my life as a kernel/system level program (and international computer networking standards) designer, rather than an applications programmer.

If this application level project prefers not to fix such mere trivialities, I'm capable of posting yet another UUSkyPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said before, if something is obviously wrong, that should be fixed. This specific door issue of the two sets of double doors IMO qualifies as one of those things that's obviously not correct. It just seems that for some odd reason we're all disagreeing over what the right fix is.

If there's actually a case somewhere where the game says you're building 4 wall shelves but only takes the supplies for 3, that's a bug. If it's supposed to build 4 but you only get 3, that's a bug. Otherwise why did the devs specify a number of wall shelves instead of just saying "Build shelves"?

As far as threatening to create things with misleading names attached to them like UUSkyPP, don't expect that to be viewed favorably based on what that kind of naming scheme is clearly meant to imply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Arthmoor said:

 - snip -

If there's actually a case somewhere where the game says you're building 4 wall shelves but only takes the supplies for 3, that's a bug. If it's supposed to build 4 but you only get 3, that's a bug.  - snip -

Yes, and probably due to the person checking just going down the list of what was required, and not noticing that one was for 4 doors or shelves, and the others for 3 doors or shelves (or whatever the number may have been). And, having been a game designer/developer (albeit in the boardgaming era, for one of the leading companies - SPI - Simulations Publications, Inc.), I know just how tedious and mind-numbing going over lists of numbers can be (which was why we had what we called "trolls" - part-timers - go over it all - LOL!).  Those things should be corrected.  But, as to changing requirements to make something "realistic" - that is clearly outside the scope of what should be done.

As to attention to detail, I doubt there are many people who have a greater attention to detail than me, though I will admit that there probably are a few, but some things, unless they are obvious errors that have an adverse effect on things, I will just not bother with as not being of significance.  Somewhat like if visiting the Taj Mahal, I would not be pointing out and concentrating on a minor crack in the marble (a major crack or a crack in a loadbearing wall, would be a different story).

Bottom line as to my opinion:  if there is an obvious error as to a wrong recipe being used for the number of items produce, that is an error, probably caused by an oversight as I described, and it should be fixed.  But as to other things that may just be decisions as to the number of items used per object, that  - unless there is evidence that it was actually a developer mistake, or an obvious de facto error (100 nails for a cabinet, let's say, where the most anything else uses is 10 (so obviously there is one too many zeros) - is something that should be left alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, smr1957 said:

having been a game designer/developer (albeit in the boardgaming era, for one of the leading companies - SPI - Simulations Publications, Inc.)

Cool. My efforts in games have been as a contractor, doing such things as the networking protocol for Mech Warrior II with Green Dragon Creations in the early '90s. On the open source community software side, for MudOS, and later reviving FreeCiv 2.x.

Began D&D from the white set in Spring '76, went on to Rune Quest in '78 and GURPS a few years later. Circa '84-85, I'd done a boardgame mashup called Barbarian Civil Diplomatic Empire. That tells you what we were playing around here at the time. But it really required a computer to run (each turn took hours by hand). Fortunately, I'd built a Vector Graphic (1) Z80 by hand in the late '70s (still sitting in my storage shed).

Sid Meier was a couple years ahead of me in school here, but we all come from the same Michigan gaming background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DayDreamer said:

Cool. My efforts in games have been as a contractor, doing such things as the networking protocol for Mech Warrior II with Green Dragon Creations in the early '90s. On the open source community software side, for MudOS, and later reviving FreeCiv 2.x.

Began D&D from the white set in Spring '76, went on to Rune Quest in '78 and GURPS a few years later. Circa '84-85, I'd done a boardgame mashup called Barbarian Civil Diplomatic Empire. That tells you what we were playing around here at the time. But it really required a computer to run (each turn took hours by hand). Fortunately, I'd built a Vector Graphic (1) Z80 by hand in the late '70s (still sitting in my storage shed).

Sid Meier was a couple years ahead of me in school here, but we all come from the same Michigan gaming background.

(off-topic just for this one reply - LOL!)  Neat!  Yeah, some great companies around then SPI, TSR, (Avalon Hill of course, though they were more mainstream and not as hardcore).  Back then we used to talk about how one day computer gaming would be a thing - LOL!  And the updates back then were the errata sheets we would put out - the original hot fixes. No such thing as a work schedule back then, either - we worked all hours - and on weekends and holidays as well, sometimes (but we were not forced to, we wanted to - it was almost more like a club of like-minded individuals than a job).  Great times!

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

EDIT - forgot Chaosium, another great game company.  And remember attending the Origins convention in Ann Arbor at University of Michigan in '78.  We (SPI) had hosted it the previous year at Wagner College on Staten Island, and the first Origins, of course, hosted by Avalon Hill in Baltimore at John Hopkins.  Lots of fun, and a lot of great people.

 

We should probably start a thread about the history of gaming and post some of the great memories we have of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DayDreamer said:

Sid Meier was a couple years ahead of me in school here, but we all come from the same Michigan gaming background.

That's really cool.  My greatest gaming celebrity claim to fame is that I took a handful of violin lessons from Gary Gygax's father in the 60's.  Those days feel as distant in time as the Pleistocene now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DayDreamer said:

See Main Hall: Second Level, North Rooms.

Should we create an additional shelf? Or change the 4 to 3 and shrink the formula to "Sawn Log, Nails", matching the line above it.

   

Using the idea of doing the least that is necessary, I would say in an error like that, just change the 4 to a 3 and adjust the recipe to what is listed for just 3.  More than likely, the number of shelves that are created is correct, someone just missed what was written when proofreading (as opposed to an actual shelf being totally missed).  Could be a result of originally there having been an extra shelf, but it was removed and the recipe never edited to reflect the change - or just the wrong recipe was written for that particular set of shelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would definitely be better to correct such a thing by fixing the text. There may not actually be space in the houses for a 4th shelf. These things are pretty tightly packed as it is. I'm surprised they found somewhere to stuff all those fix plaques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...