40d Talk:Item value

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

raw mat.[edit]

I don't think raw materials have a value of 0 anymore. Raw stone for an example seems to have a base value of 3*. Noctis 03:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Some do some don't. Bones have a value of 0. Raw stone, gems, wood does have a base value. --Soyweiser 08:14, 11 November 2007 (EST)

take out gems?[edit]

I don't know if we should list all of the gems, it clutters the page up a bit. Maybe we should just link to Gem, it has all of the gem values. --Valdemar 10:16, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I'm VERY late to reply, but I think it's best just to leave them there. It's good to see them integrated with the other multipliers. --Rusty Mcloon 06:01, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
I've noticed that several gems have a ton of varieties that all have the same value (i.e. there's 'eight' agates, but all are at x2). We can clean it up a bit by simply saying "all agates", and similar statements for the others. There's also a few like zircon with most of the variants at the same value, so that could be cleaned up by putting "most zircons" or "most zircons (black, green, red, yellow, brown)" or some such for each of those. Doing those things would at least cut down the number of entries if nothing else. What do you guys think? LegacyCWAL 15:56, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Wait, what am I saying, it's a Wiki. I can go ahead and change it myself. LegacyCWAL 14:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
I can agree with that modification. Shortening the list is always a good thing. --GreyMaria 15:32, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
lol--Mrdudeguy 07:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

value of clothes/shoes[edit]

That list of item values says that "all clothes" have a value of 10 and shoes have a value of 15. Should it be "all clothes except shoes" or is the value of shoes actually 10? Bouchart 23:14, 8 December 2007 (EST)

fixed.--Koltom 14:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

phantom spider silk cloth - values[edit]

  • *phantom spider silk cloth* 76
  • +phantom spider silk cloth+ 62
  • -phantom spider silk cloth- 48
  • phantom spider silk cloth 34

Does anyone know where these values came from? VengefulDonut 12:46, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Hmm. I think all cloth has a decoration on it. That would explain it. VengefulDonut 13:05, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Same thing. No decoration. In s versions 33d/e/f/g It's just that. My guess - some error either in code or in our minds :) Dorten 23:32, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Including an invisible decoration of the same material (but no quality mod) would explain these numbers. VengefulDonut 02:14, 10 January 2008 (EST)
explained below --Koltom 14:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)

value change by decorations[edit]

Shouldnt this page list how decorations change the value of an item as well? Also, if the value of bone and shell is 0 (base) or 1 (multiplier) does that mean that decorating with bone or shell doesnt change the items value? Robje 17:11, 21 January 2008 (EST)

The base value of a decoration is 10. A bone decoration would increase the value of an object by 1 x 10 = 10. Does that make sense? VengefulDonut 01:12, 22 January 2008 (EST)
Yes, it does. So the lead goblet example from the article worth 40☼ would be worth 50☼ with some bone decorations, right? It just adds the value of the decorations to the items value, it doesnt multiply anything. Think that should be added to this page? or the decoration page? Robje 11:38, 22 January 2008 (EST)
It wouldn't hurt to have it on both, as it's quite relevant to both articles. --Edward 20:44, 22 January 2008 (EST)

plant 2, cloth 7(+20) clothes/shoes from cloth 10/15 (+40)[edit]


pig tail 1 * plant 4 = 4 correct
sun/prickle berry0.5 * plant4 = 2 correct


prickle berry1*plant 2= 2 correct
pig tail2 * plant 2 =4 correct

the first option doesn't hold true, since:

pig tail 2 * thread6 = 12 correct

Also, the raws give the value of pigtail as 2, no value for sun/prickel berry, thus 1


pig tail2/silk2 * cloth7 would be 14, but is 34

So I suspect ther's a general +20 on cloth, that would also explain the quality level-value increase (as above):

  • *phantom spider silk cloth* 76 = 4*2*7+20
  • +phantom spider silk cloth+ 62 = 3*2*7+20
  • -phantom spider silk cloth- 48 = 2*2*7 +20
  • phantom spider silk cloth 34 = 2*7+20

The base value for clothes is probably tweaked too..

(On a side note, shouldn't phantom spider silk be much more valuable?) --Koltom 14:32, 24 February 2008 (EST)

a first look into clothes/mittens/gloves/shoes/socks/gauntlets suggests a base 10 for clothes/mittens/gloves plus 40 if from cloth and a base 15 for shoes/socks/gauntlets (again +40 if from cloth).

Prices fit perfectly if compared with leather and bone ware. --Koltom 15:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I suspect giant cave spider silk will mess this up. VengefulDonut 16:46, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Go away ;P No, yes, i already noticed, doesn't work with giant..but for the rest it's fine. And giant silk is messed up altogether, other than that its mighty valuable, the numbers don't fit at all. Have any thread at hand for comparison? --Koltom 17:03, 24 February 2008 (EST)
I think the +20 comes from 10 x 2. The 2 is from the cloth value. VengefulDonut 17:09, 24 February 2008 (EST)
Ha!Ha!Ha! Its so obvious! Took my record keeper just a second glance! The value for giant is multiplied by 10! dye and deco goes separate on top! --Koltom 17:11, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Bone value[edit]

I recall reading somewhere, that dragon bone are far more valuable material than generic (i.e. turtle) bones. Can anyone verify? --Dorten 04:32, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

For all plant and animal products, the value is multiplied by the thing's modvalue. A dragon has a modvalue of 50. VengefulDonut 09:51, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
They are indeed more valuable, and the same goes for leather and (as far as I can tell) shells. It isn't reflected in the chart though LegacyCWAL 16:02, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Potential improvements[edit]

Although most items have a value which equals shape * material, some items have an invariable, hardcoded value (including drinks, dyes, cheeses, flours, and many more). A separate table of these items and their values would be nice. Also, a list of items which never have quality.

The value of Prepared meals needs some explanation. In short, the value of each ingredient is added to the value of the meal. An example:

≡Dwarven wheat flour roast [33]≡

This is a stack of 33 finely-prepared Dwarven wheat flour roast. The ingredients are exceptionally minced Plump helmet, well-minced deer meat, superiorly minced Quarry bush Leaves and minced Dwarven wheat flour.

Total value: 3102☼

10 (prepared meal) * 3 (fine) == 30

2 (plant) * 2 (plump helmet) * 5 (exceptional) == 20

2 (meat) * 1 (deer) * 2 (well-made) == 4

5 (quarry bush leaves) * 4 (superior) == 20

20 (dwarven wheat flour) * 1 (no label) == 20

Total: 94

94 (value) * 33 (quantity) == 3102

The meals are named after the last ingredient, and the quality modifier on the meals is the highest in the recipe.

Finally, the formula given for the value of items made of cloth is slightly off. Things made of cloth have what amounts to a decoration made of the cloth material and a second (invisible) decoration made of the thread material. This really only makes a difference when your weaver is skilled enough to produce cloth with a quality. Example:

+cave spider silk bag+

This is a finely-crafted cave spider silk bag. It is made from well-woven cave spider silk cloth. The thread is superiorly-colored with Dimple dye.

Total value: 200☼

10 (bag) * 2 (cave spider silk) * 3 (fine) == 60

10 (cloth) * 2 (cave spider silk) * 2 (well-made) == 40

10 (thread) * 2 (cave spider silk) * 1 (no label) == 20

10 (dyed) * 2 (Dimple dye) * 4 (superior) == 80

Total: 200

Since the item, cloth, and thread are always made of the same material, you can simplify a bit by factoring out, but I think this is what's going on. The only material that has a value other than 2 right now is giant cave spider silk, with a value of 20. Cloth has the invisible thread decoration, but (obviously) not the cloth decoration. I'm not certain whether or not thread ever has a quality, but I remember someone mentioning that it could on the forums. Further testing required; someone'll have to train up a legendary Thresher. --Hussell 15:39, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Started a fortressv0.27.176.38c with a proficient thresher, which is a high enough skill level to never produce no label quality items. Pig Tail thread produced by this dwarf still has a value of 12, so I conclude that thread never has quality. --Hussell 10:35, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
After playing with the raws, the situation for cloth is even more complicated than I thought. There are two types of cloth: plant cloth, with a base value of 1, which gets multiplied by the value of the plant (2 for both pig tail and rope reed, but it could have been different), and silk, with a base value of 2, which gets multiplied by the value of the animal (1 for cave spiders and phantom spiders, 10 for giant cave spiders). So a giant cave spider silk bag is actually 10 (bag) * 2 (silk) * 10 (GCS) * clothier quality + 10 (cloth) * 2 (silk) * 10 (GCS) * weaver quality + 10 (thread) * 2 (silk) * 10 (GCS).
Also, sewn-image decorations get no bonus for the cloth or thread they're made of, just the fibre-type*fibre-source modifier. But they do get the dye bonus. Except on artifacts. And artifacts made of cloth don't use the same cloth/thread decoration system. Ugh. --Hussell 12:18, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
This revelation doesn't affect what you said before. Whether the value of the cloth and thread comes from base value 1 and modvalue 2 or base value 2 and modvalue 1, the value x quality of the cloth and the value of the thread are both decorated onto the finished product.
What are some of the values/materials you've had for cloth artifacts? VengefulDonut 01:18, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Wood and Stone Values[edit]

It seems that certain woods are more valuable than others; my woodcrafter made an exceptional larch crown and an exceptional cedar crown, neither have decorations, but the cedar crown was worth 95 while the larch was worth 85. Also, neither seems to fit with the values for wood anyway (10*1*5=50). Also, all logs and stones seem to be worth 3, not 1 or 2.--Stinhad Limarezum 23:36, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

The logs and stones being worth 3 perfectly fits what's on the page. Stones and Logs are worth 3 times whatever their material multiplier is, which is 1 for wood and common stone. Hence logs and common stones wind up worth 3. Flux stones, with their 2x multiplier, wind up being worth 6. And so on. As for your crowns, larch being worth less than cedar wouldn't give those kinds of numbers, the difference would be some multiple of 50, not the difference between 85 vs. 95. Are you absolutely sure that you're reading it right and that there's no decorations, and that there's nothing else different at all between them? --LegacyCWAL 17:27, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
Are you looking at the item price instead of its base value? Price is only important within the context of the dwarven economy.--Maximus 20:30, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Weapon Value?[edit]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the article on the value of weapons like crossbows and battle axes. Gairabad 22:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up, I (and everybody else, it seems =P) hadn't noticed that. After some checking, it looks like the base value of all weapons and trap components is 10. I have a couple more things I want to check just to be sure, but it looks like I'll be adding in a "10" on there pretty soon ;) LegacyCWAL 21:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Simplifying materials table[edit]

When I realized the animal modvalues weren't listed, I thought I should add them. After a very short time, I noticed the list of material values was getting rather long, to the point of being unreadable. So instead of putting the animal material values on this page, I put them on a separate page and linked to it. Having set this precedent, I thought the gem multipliers, ore multipliers, metal multipliers, economic stone multipliers, and plant multipliers could all be treated the same way. Doing this would make this page significantly shorter and more understandable.

Clearly, I should have asked for input before going ahead and making the changes. For this, I apologize. I would like to ask for your opinions now, since I still think taking advantage of the lists of material multipliers on other pages is a good idea. I also added some details on several types of special decorations, and several much more detailed examples of how to compute item values, which I also think had some merit.

My proposed changes: http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php?title=Item_value&oldid=39044

Differences with current page: http://www.dwarffortresswiki.net/index.php?title=Item_value&diff=39690&oldid=39044

--Hussell 22:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

I propose that rather than removing the material multipliers from the material multiplier section of the article, we split them into (collapsible?) tables organized by type of material. Possibly: stone (incl. ores), gems, metal, (plant products? animal products?), and a catch-all other. VengefulDonut 10:43, 2 February 2009 (EST)
That seems like an excellent compromise to me. --Hussell 12:45, 2 February 2009 (EST)

Multiplier Stone
1 Common Stone, Bismuthinite
2 Calcite, Cassiterite, Chalk, Copper nuggets, Dolomite, Garnierite, Limestone, Malachite, Marble, Sphalerite
3 Obsidian, Tetrahedrite
5 Galena
8 Hematite, Limonite, Magnetite
10 Horn silver, Silver nuggets
30 Gold nuggets
40 Native aluminum, Platinum nuggets
250 Raw adamantine

Multiplier Metal
2 Bismuth, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Tin, Zinc
3 Lay pewter, Nickel silver
4 Trifle pewter
5 Bronze, Fine pewter
6 Billon, Bismuth bronze
7 Brass
8 Sterling silver
10 Iron, Pig iron, Silver
11 Black bronze
20 Electrum
23 Rose gold
30 Gold, Steel
40 Aluminum, Platinum
300 Adamantine

VengefulDonut 02:14, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Hussell 13:32, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I moved in the tables, but I think "stones and ores" is redundant since ores are a class of stones. Also "non-economic stones" doesn't really make a category split. It has not always been the case that only economic stones have value not equal to one, and it once again might not be in the future. These nice tables. The gems especially must have taken a lot of work. VengefulDonut 21:26, 3 February 2009 (EST)


Thanks. I have no problem with putting the ores, economic stones, and common stone in the same table. I originally split them up only because the lists of material multipliers were on three different pages. I do have a couple of other concerns, though. I see you added leather and bone to the miscellaneous table. I'm not sure they belong there. Also, I think we need some clear examples showing how to compute the value of a few of the more complicated items, especially prepared meals, items made from dyed cloth, and decorations (including sewn dyed-cloth decorations). Maybe soap, too, just for laughs. Lastly, I went through the stockpile menu and found some things we're missing: lye, ballista arrow heads, and animal traps. Lye seems to be a no-material, no-quality item of value 5. (You can find it in the food stockpile menu, along with almost all of the other no-material no-quality items.) I know animal traps and ballista arrow heads both have quality and material, but I don't have a fortress advanced enough to produce any just now. I think animal traps have a base value of 10, but I'm not sure, and I really have no idea how valuable ballista arrow heads are. (Does anyone actually use ballista arrowheads?) Let me know what you think. Hussell 23:10, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Where do you think leather and bone should go? The values in the animal table are a different breed of animal. I agree with you on the other counts; especially detailed examples. Do you know how to calc prepared meals and sewn dyed decorations? Soap calculations are imperative, on the off chance some utility can get soap included as an artifact ingredient :). I will keep an eye out for the values we are missing. They are probably both 10. VengefulDonut 00:05, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I don't think leather and bone should be considered materials at all. I'm not even sure plant thread should be considered a material. It's easier to think of all animal products as being made out of an animal material, with silk and soap as special cases. We could insert the explanation from the top of Modvalue if you think it would help. Either that, or we'll have to list all animal products as materials. I know how to calculate the value of prepared meals. See Talk:Item_value#Potential_improvements. I'm a little unclear on dyed decorations, and dye in general. I need to mod the values of some dyes and plant values to see if the value of dye decorations is based on the value of the dye, or on the value of a decoration times the plant value. I'll get back to you with the results of my tests. Hussell 13:08, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I think it would be simpler to use the table to keep bone, leather, etc. on there, just with a note mentioning the effect of mod value. This is because you don't turn animals or plants directly into the end product, but have to go through intermediate steps to get there. For example, your leatherworker doesn't drag a cow to the leatherworking shop and turn it into a cow leather bag, what he does is go to the leather stockpile and take a piece of leather to use. There's also the fact that not all leather, cloth, or silk comes from animals you slaughter/butcher: it's hard to think of a carp leather buckler as a carp product when you bought the leather from a caravan. LegacyCWAL 14:24, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Carp leather (15) = 5 (leather, from table 1.2) * 3 (carp, from animal materials table). The question is whether or not to have leather as a x1 material multiplier in the miscellaneous materials table as well as being a base item type in table 1.2. Apologies if you already understood this and I misunderstood what you wrote. With leather in both tables, it would be impossible to tell whether the base item has value 1 and the multiplier is x5, or whether the base item has value 5 and the multiplier is x1. For simplicity's sake, I argue that it should only appear in the base item type table.
Ah, I see. I thought you meant to remove that stuff from the page altogether. I still think it should be left in though, since tanned hides are still an actual item, and not just an ingredient. Same goes for bones and whatnot. Plant thread, like silk, can be dyed, which is an arguement for keeping thread as its own item. Further still, if things like hides and thread are removed under the logic that they're just "animal products", then a lot of other things should be removed as well, such as milk, many extracts, and even booze (though plants having booze values different from their "normal" values would complicate things in the plants section).LegacyCWAL 15:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)
I think we're violently agreeing here. All these things are in the base item tables, and no-one is suggesting they be removed from there. Hussell 17:34, 4 February 2009 (EST)


Listing leather as a material is more transparent. With silk as a guide, we can say the multiplier of leather could just as easily have been 2 or 5 rather than 1. I agree that listing leather as both a base object and a material may elicit some confusion, but this is nothing that the behavior of stone (resp. metal) doesn't already cause. VengefulDonut 10:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
It's a slippery slope. There would have to be materials for all the other animal products too. Ignoring the stuff you can't make anything out of, like corpses and chunks, there are, at a minimum: fish (for raw fish, prepared fish, and prepared meals), fat (for fat, tallow, soap, and prepared meals), bone (for bones, decorations, bolts, armor, etc.), skulls (for skulls and skull totems), shell (for decorations, armor, crafts), leather (for lots of things), and silk (ditto) and meat (for meat and prepared meals). I would rather have only silk and soap on the list, but if you insist on putting more on, you should put them all on. I think having silk and soap as the only two exceptions to the rule that items have no more than one material multiplier is less confusing and more transparent than adding a bunch of entries to the table and making the calculation of item values more complicated than it has to be. Hussell 00:25, 11 February 2009 (EST)
I think your decision is (in general) the correct one. If we knew less about the underlying mechanics I would wholeheartedly support it. However, because of soap and silk, we do know that there is another multiplier (of 1) acting there. I think it is wrong to list misinformation just because it is convenient and gives consistent results. It's like the difference between teaching mathematics by explaining the underlying structure or just 'teaching' mathematics by providing a list of steps that need to be followed to reach the correct answer. VengefulDonut 02:16, 11 February 2009 (EST)
However, I think silk and soap might be exceptions in the code, too. Unlike all the other material multipliers listed, we cannot verify the existence of the ones you want to include, because 1. they have no effect on value, if they exist, and 2. we can't mod their values to give them an effect. I also think it's wrong to list misinformation. I just think it's you who's doing it. :-) Hussell 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Ah, I was under the impression our disagreement stemmed from something different.
Ok, I'm going to try to convince of my view of the structure. If I can do that (or if you can push yours), then that will settle it.
We know that before settings started moving into the raw files, all of the material multipliers were hard coded, and those that aren't in the raws (yet?) still are. We also know that things with a raw data entry but no specified value (like most stone) default to 1.
Let's assume that one of our two schema would be implemented if (when?) silk and soap values stop being hard coded and move into the raws. By your view (if I understand it correctly), silk and soap would be the only two animal products that can have entries. By my view, any might have a value entry, and any without one would default to 1. This is consistent with how stones behave. VengefulDonut 14:46, 11 February 2009 (EST)
No, I view animal products as already having a value in the raws: the animal modvalue. I believe silk and soap (if soap is, in fact, a block, and not a separate base item with value 25) are exceptions in that they have an extra multiplier. This is consistent with the way stone products behave: stones, and everything made from stones, get a material multiplier from a particular type of stone. Animals, and everything made from animals, get a material multiplier from a particular type of animal. Hussell 15:52, 12 February 2009 (EST)
If you could have it any way you wanted, how would you handle putting silk into the raws? VengefulDonut 19:35, 12 February 2009 (EST)
I think I would remove the hardcoded x2 multiplier for silk, and double the modvalue of cave spiders and phantom spiders (from 1 to 2). GCS silk would have half the value it has now, but the whole system would be simpler and more consistent. Hussell 12:52, 14 February 2009 (EST)
Hmm. Ok, let's do it your way. I strongly suspect it will change in the near future, but I think this is the best fit right now. VengefulDonut 09:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)
In other news, I've confirmed that animal traps have a base value of 10. No news yet on ballista arrowheads. I think animal traps and cages should be added to the base items with material and quality table, since they end up in their own stockpile, not with furniture as you might suppose. Also: this talk page is getting too long. I suggest removing the draft versions of the material tables. Hussell 00:34, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Ballista arrowheads have a base value of 10. They're considered furniture, so I'm leaving the table alone. Note: assembling a non-wooden ballista arrow uses a log and an arrowhead, and gives you a ballista arrow made from metal. E.g., a +Steel ballista arrow+ is worth 1800, which is what you'd expect (20 * 30 * 3). Hussell 23:08, 16 February 2009 (EST)


Testingv0.28.181.40d reveals that dye value comes from the value of the dye, not the value of a decoration multiplied by the plant material. The following is a real example:
+«+Pig tail shoe+»+
This is a finely-crafted Pig tail shoe. It is made from well-crafted Pig tail cloth. The thread is midnight blue, finely colored with Dimple dye. On the item is a finely-designed image of squares in Pig tail by Urvad Zonilash. It is made from superior quality Pig tail cloth. The thread is midnight blue, finely colored with Dimple dye.
Base item Material Quality Subtotal
15 (shoe) x2 (pig tail) x3 (fine quality) = 90
10 (cloth decoration) x2 (pig tail) x2 (well-crafted quality) = 40
10 (thread decoration) x2 (pig tail) = 20
20 (dimple dye) x3 (fine quality) = 60
10 (image decoration) x2 (pig tail) x3 (fine quality) = 60
20 (dimple dye) x3 (fine quality) = 60
Total: 330
Note that the cloth used to make the sewn image decoration does not contribute to the value, despite its material and quality being in the description. Hussell 20:51, 4 February 2009 (EST)
Interesting. If the thread used to decorate an object isn't dyed, does the "cloth" object still disappear? VengefulDonut 10:31, 5 February 2009 (EST)
Yes. So I guess you should use all that no-quality cloth the traders bring to decorate bags, and only use your own quality cloth to make bags. Hussell 11:16, 5 February 2009 (EST)

Incorrect Information on Engravings[edit]

This article mentions that engravings add the base value for decoration (10) with the standard material modifications. However, I have not found this to be true. I ran a test for my ice fort (see notes in glacier:talk) to see what the value of ice engravings were. First I smoothed three sections of regular rock (value 1), then engraved them, then smoothed 3 sections of Obsidian (value 3), and then engraved them. The results were identical for both types of stone (each smoothing added 4 to the value and each engraving added 10 - all were base quality). Interestingly enough, the ice smoothings were worth 8 and the ice engravings 10. Can anyone else verify this (don't worry about the ice part, unless you want to)? --Frewfrux 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about fortress wealth, but engravings in more valuable stone definitely contribute more to room value/quality. I have a lot of grand 1x3 bedrooms in flux layers without really trying, and I have satisfied many nobles' requirements with otherwise modest rooms in valuable (iron or better) ore veins. --LaVacaMorada 07:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I had been assuming they would be the same thing (room value and fortress wealth), minus any dwarven preference bumping the 'percieved' room value up. Are you sure your rooms are grand and not great? (Grand being one step down from royal.) And by "not really trying" I am assuming you just have beds in these rooms in addition to the engravings? Grand rooms have a value of at least 2,500. A 1X3 Room, that was side by side with other 1x3 rooms, would have it's walls shared with the other bedrooms. So, if:
  • only half (lets round up) of this rooms walls will count towards value,
  • the material counts towards the value,
  • and all the engravers were better then Lengendary +5 and did masterful work half the time,
you would have:
  • 6 walls and 3 floors (9)
  • 5 masterful engravings worth (5 engravings * 10 base value * 12 masterful work * 2 flux stone) = 1,200
  • 4 exceptional engravings worth (4 engravings * 10 base value * 5 exceptional work * 2 flux stone) = 400
for a total of 1,600 from engravings. You bed would have to be worth 900. Hmmmmm. I think I need to test this out more. --Frewfrux 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm, testing, right. How is one able to tell what the value of a room is, exactly? What I mean is, how do I tell what the *exact* value of a room is (as opposed to its general rating of meager, modest, etc) without checking the "created wealth" section of the stats menu? --Frewfrux 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Let the Economy start, then put the room up for rent - it'll show the room's exact value under (q) status. --Quietust 18:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. Unfortunately I don't have a fort for which the economy has started yet with which to test. I guess I'll just have to keep this in mind to do when my glacier fort gets there. If it ever does (terrifying biome) --Frewfrux 19:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
By "not really trying", I mean that I don't go out of my way to make them valuable. The fortress in question has well-established textile and glass industries, so I do have some valuable furniture - it's just that valuable furniture is all over the place in this fortress. A sample bedroom with a rent of 2536☼ contains 1130☼ worth of furniture, 10 exceptional marble engravings, and 5 masterful marble engravings. By comparison, I have a room with 1450☼ worth of furniture, 9 exceptional diorite engravings, and 6 masterful diorite engravings, and a rent of 1997☼. So I don't know exactly how the rent is calculated, but marble engravings definitely contribute more than diorite. --LaVacaMorada 06:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)