Print

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

[Martin]

Well, the upcoming problem is that in the new version Toady has these massive underground caverns. That just made the situation a lot harder to reintroduce cave-ins.

And on the discussions of how to model it properly, remember that the more rock you have over the excavation, the larger you can safely mine. So far from the surface you could make larger rooms than close to the surface.

But the problem with these isn't math or computing power but the ability for a player to actually work out what will and won't collapse. Some miners can make 10x10 but others only 3x3? How would anyone keep track of that? How would anyone work out how big a room they could make by how many z-layers of rock were over their heads? Seems like it'd make the game rather unfun for many people.

[LordZorintrhox]

Hmmm, true.  If the sidebar thingy that changes with the z-level (I've never looked into how it is supposed to work) was made to graphically represent how deep the cursor is relative to the whole map, that might help make the cave-ins be more easy to deal with.  Perhaps it already conveys this information

Besides, we're batting a thousand when it comes to scaring newbies off; what's one, or ten, more ridiculously complex gameplay elements?

I hadn't thought of how the new release's undergrounds would affect this...still, using the pathing information which is provided for free just by how the game already works would effectively speed up the cave-in search, though the lag introduced may still be noticeable.  But yeah, the real question is if it can be implemented in a user-friendly way.

One could solve this with yet another cave-in option, bringing the total to three: no cave-ins, simple cave-ins (like now), and simulated cave-ins (fancy kill-your-comp).  The level of complexity of the full featured version of the game is so high that it probably warrants a whole host of game play options like that to make it even barely playable for a complete newb or the casual gamer.

[Martin]

The level of complexity of the full featured version of the game is so high that it probably warrants a whole host of game play options like that to make it even barely playable for a complete newb or the casual gamer.

Well, we seem to rally around that anyway.

"Urist, here's a pigtail bag full of dimple dye seeds, two pregnant cats, a barrel of lye and a map full of skeletal carp and hippos. 100 orcs will be here in 3 months. Good luck."
"Wait, don't I get a pick or axe or anything?"
"Why do you demand everything to be so easy? See ya. Don't forget to write!"

[Dr. Melon]

I would like to see its comeback - provided it had a little section in the init file.

[CAVE_INS:YES]
[CAVE_IN_SIZE:7]

And so on. Just don't put [CAVE_IN_SIZE:1] in there...

[Granite26]

Well, the game already tracks the accessibility of locations to each other.  This means it must run the pathing algorithm, at least when accessibility matters, to see if you can path to a location. 

Actually, it uses floodfill, not pathfinding, but that doesn't change your statement

But the problem with these isn't math or computing power but the ability for a player to actually work out what will and won't collapse. Some miners can make 10x10 but others only 3x3? How would anyone keep track of that? How would anyone work out how big a room they could make by how many z-layers of rock were over their heads? Seems like it'd make the game rather unfun for many people.

Sound fun to me

Hmmm, true.  If the sidebar thingy that changes with the z-level (I've never looked into how it is supposed to work) was made to graphically represent how deep the cursor is relative to the whole map, that might help make the cave-ins be more easy to deal with.  Perhaps it already conveys this information

Sidebar is distance from the cursor to the surface...  It will change as you move it around a single Z-level

[Martin]

Just don't put [CAVE_IN_SIZE:1] in there...

Rookie.

[Dakk]

I really want it to come back, mainly cause i heard awesome stories involving cave-ins from my friends before i started playing, and the new version doesn't have them
I even carefully carve/build my rooms with a few pillars in them for the sake of realism.

[ricemastah]

The old 6x6 or 6x7 was a good method for me, but I always dug out my fortresses in the same way. I don't usually dig that way anymore, but I will leave support and pillars for very large rooms usually. Also I would like it for cave-ins to be back in. They bring such fond memories

[Nightwind]

I've got an idea that might work, check this for me.

Everything gets two more tags, a true/false "solid" and scalar "danger", and every tile understands it it's "supported".

When a square first finds it has been mined under, or somehow has empty space under it (cave in) it makes a pathing check.  Each step SUBTRACTS "danger" from the steps left in the pathing attempt of (X) tiles.  IF it CAN"T path to a tile marked "solid" it caves in.  Once it HAS pathed, it gets a number under "supported" indicating what it had left.  This might even allow tiles next to it to know if THEY are supported without a full test, forcing a full one only when it apperas to tail once.

solid rock is "support" walls are... other things... *shrug*

It's abusable, but it's also minimal demand.

[Reynard]

I think cave-ins should have a randomness aspect to them. In the 2d version, every 7x7 open space was guaranteed to have a cave-in eventually. Perhaps a good algorithm would be to periodically pick a random underground location and "expand" a hemispherical volume upwards. The larger the hemisphere gets before being constrained by walls/supports, the greater a chance a cave-in is triggered at that spot. So... the center of even a 5x5 room would have a (very) small chance of having stone fall out of the ceiling on an unsuspecting dwarfy head. Start making 12x12 rooms and you seriously court having the ceiling cave in.