You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It's great that you can disable a labor from the autolabor, but I think it would increase the utility of it if you could also exempt specific dwarves from autolabor entirely. Looking at the source code, I can see there is already implemented 'penalties' for specific roles, but I don't see any way to exploit that well without changes to the plugin.
Two possible strategies present themselves:
Use some generic, in-game settable property of the dwarves to determine labor exemption (such as a nickname or unused labor such as alchemy)
Have the autolabor plugin itself able to manage specific dwarves for exemption. This would involve:
Selecting a dwarf from either the context of the cursor or using the dwarf's name
Persisting this data
Occasionally pruning this data to remove dead dwarves
Personally, I think using the property of a nickname would be pretty straightforward to implement and use.
I think I could add this functionality pretty easily. Can anybody think of any reason this wouldn't work?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Arg, apparently AFTER writing a change to do this, I discover that any dwarf in a burrow is automatically exempt from autolabor. I suggest that you put that in the documentation, thanks!
It's great that you can disable a labor from the autolabor, but I think it would increase the utility of it if you could also exempt specific dwarves from autolabor entirely. Looking at the source code, I can see there is already implemented 'penalties' for specific roles, but I don't see any way to exploit that well without changes to the plugin.
Two possible strategies present themselves:
Personally, I think using the property of a nickname would be pretty straightforward to implement and use.
I think I could add this functionality pretty easily. Can anybody think of any reason this wouldn't work?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: