Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MuonDecay]

tl;dr- give the finder the option to choose either a bottomless pit OR a chasm, magma pipe OR pool, cave river OR cave pool

The finder is really useful, but the menu layout is less than optimal, requiring that sometimes you must perform several entire searches with several minor alterations to settings in order to find what you want.

Specifically, this:

Say I want either a chasm or a bottomless pit and have no preference. I can't tell the game that, if I get a partial match because I chose one I have to attempt an entire search again trying the other.

Rather than have toggles laid out as:
Chasm: yes/no/na
Pit: yes/no/na
The menu should be constructed in such a way as to be
Chasm/Pit: chasm/pit/either/na

That really simple change of syntax, made for tubes/pools as well as chasms/pits just about doubles the effective usefulness of the site finder and makes it far more user-friendly, too. It is a far more natural and elegant syntax. It has absolutely no drawbacks to make it inferior to the current system, since it can still do everything the current setup does... it just does things the current setup can't do as well, as well as doing some of the same things with increased efficiency.

This would be a huge timesaver and a relatively simple change.

Basically if we want to screen for a Chasm OR a Pit... or a Pipe OR a Pool... we can't. It's impossible, the only option is an XOR which requires several searches. This alteration would remedy that.

[Draco18s]

It has absolutely no drawbacks, at all, which would make it inferior to the current system, since it can still do everything the current setup does... it just does things the current setup can't do as well.

Inferior?  So the current version is superior?

[Footkerchief]

I like this approach but would add a few more options to each "category," like for Chasm/Pit I'd have chasm/pit/both/either/neither/NA, just to cover all the combinations.

Also, with the underground changes coming up next release, it's very possible that the dualities of chasm/pit and magma pool/pipe will no longer exist.  So this approach might become irrelevant.

[SolarShado]

While we'er suggesting changes/additions for the finder: add req. for specific biomes. I was reciently trying to find a desert with magma. Using the drainage/rainfall/temperature/etc. settings I got as many badlands as deserts.

In addition/instead: search for sand/soil/possibly other soil/stone layers/types

[MMad]

I agree with the OP (I've had the *exact* same problem), but let's not get carried away with the finder. Having to search a bit for the perfect site is part of the fun right now, imo. Making it easy to specify exactly what you want and having the site given to you just like that might take a bit of the fun out of the whole thing. Or am I being too much of a masochist?

[MuonDecay]

It has absolutely no drawbacks, at all, which would make it inferior to the current system, since it can still do everything the current setup does... it just does things the current setup can't do as well.

Inferior?  So the current version is superior?

Oops, poor choice of grammar there, I'll fix that

[SolarShado]

I agree with the OP (I've had the *exact* same problem), but let's not get carried away with the finder. Having to search a bit for the perfect site is part of the fun right now, imo. Making it easy to specify exactly what you want and having the site given to you just like that might take a bit of the fun out of the whole thing. Or am I being too much of a masochist?

I can understand the fun of looking for "the perfect site" by hand, personally I don't enjoy that sort of thing. You always have to option to set your search parameters more loosely. Just sayin'.

[Draco18s]

I can understand the fun of looking for "the perfect site" by hand, personally I don't enjoy that sort of thing. You always have to option to set your search parameters more loosely. Just sayin'.

Is magma + Bottomless pit too much to ask for?

[SolarShado]

I can understand the fun of looking for "the perfect site" by hand, personally I don't enjoy that sort of thing. You always have to option to set your search parameters more loosely. Just sayin'.

Is magma + Bottomless pit too much to ask for?

Not at all, I'm all for the suggestion. I was just saying that I can understand that some players enjoy looking for a "perfect site" by hand (more of less). I don't. I'm sure we all have our own deffinition of "perfect site" which will likely change from one fort to the next.

[Draco18s]

I can understand the fun of looking for "the perfect site" by hand, personally I don't enjoy that sort of thing. You always have to option to set your search parameters more loosely. Just sayin'.

Is magma + Bottomless pit too much to ask for?

Not at all, I'm all for the suggestion. I was just saying that I can understand that some players enjoy looking for a "perfect site" by hand (more of less). I don't. I'm sure we all have our own deffinition of "perfect site" which will likely change from one fort to the next.

If you actually try to find a 3x3 site with bottomless pit and magma (currently doable with the site finder) you'll find that you'll get maybe ONE per medium world.  Two if you go to 4x4.

[Align]

How do you tell if there's more than one result?

[Draco18s]

You occasionally get different results if you place the cursor in different corners of the world map.

Also, I've manually searched.

Also, it took me four medium worlds getting 0 results before I found the first.