Print

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

[The Bard]

The difference is that my building a castle doesn't interfere with how anyone else has fun, but your quest for clutter would inhibit my castle building.

The base concept of rubble without having things to actually do with the stuff just adds more busy work to anything else a player would want to do in the game.

Aquifers are a similar annoying hindrance, but at least they actually do something besides act as a pain in the early stages.

Without things to do with it, it's just refuse that never, ever goes away; it can just be moved around.And unlike refuse, it actively hinders you rather than just giving bad thoughts.

Hey, how about that, actually: instead of gumming up mining, it gives bad thoughts for having to walk in it/mine through it? That way it's a determent without making mining more painfully slow than it already is, moving the pain from me (who shouldn't have to deal with it) to the dwarves (who deserve it).

[Graknorke]

It could work, but from a gameplay perspective, I don't think we really even need more things to build walls with.  Just carrying wood or stone and making walls from those is just as effective and removes the need for an intermediary industrial step.  As long as rubble can fill in walls, as well, there wouldn't be much reason to go to the trouble.

I think I might have misinterpreted what you meant by rubble filling in walls, I thought you meant it just kind of filling in wherever it fell. If that were the case; to build anything meaningful out of it you'd either need very careful rubble zone management or some complex haul-interruption stuff.
If however, they can be built by simply requiring *rubble-per-wall* pieces of rubble to be brought to the construction site then making them into blocks would be rather useless.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

The difference is that my building a castle doesn't interfere with how anyone else has fun, but your quest for clutter would inhibit my castle building.

as long as it's an init option or can be modded out, having rubble wouldn't interfere with your building a castle above ground at all, while not having rubble would interfere with our wish to deal with more realistic logistic challenges and see a more believable fortress developing

actually, having 1:1 rubble would be awesome to construct above ground fortresses, building a mound atop which you'd build your castle, and filling the empty spaces between 2 walls to make a 4 tiles thick wall come to mind as obvious uses for rubble, as well as obstructing a river to divert it to your moat

[NW_Kohaku]

Actually, if rubble behaved in a manner like sand was proposed, and would "flow" downwards the way that sand and gravel do in games like Terraria and Minecraft, filling spaces inside castle walls with rubble would be a fairly clever strategy - when sappers tried to dig through it, it would just collapse and produce another rubble wall to dig through. 

[HiEv]

I wasn't thinking of compressing it exactly, something more along the lines of Gabions than straight up compressing it into blocks.
They would probably require some rope or chain.

I like that, good suggestion.  Though it would probably require a bar of metal or a log or something for a "gabion cage" or something to make it realistic, which makes it a bit more complicated.

[King Mir]

If rubble is added, walls should be build with 1 stone or block and 1 rubble.

[crekit]

Didn't read the whole thing, but read a lot of argument.

I kind of like the idea of rubble. It would be cool to have to manage it, especially when the fort was locked up. And I could always dump it into the magma see, right?

BUT

I want elevators. Powered belts to carry it up and away.

[Waparius]

I have to say, I'd rather have rubble to deal with as well. Reading through Kohaku's suggestions already has me thinking, well, if I want a huge fortress without the overground turning into rubble, I could always build a huge fuck-off silo tower and dump it in there with all my goblin prisoners, or maybe stuff some of it into the caverns if I really want some magma right now... - but then again I've done a few Realism Challenges where I actually did pile up my stone, dig airshafts and sanitation and a few other things like that, so yeah.

I mean, setting up things like that and then watching my dorfs scurry around to make it happen is kind of the point of this game, whether it's designing the fortress interior or scheduling my militia or playing with magma. The additional infrastructure option is just more potential for fun.

The only real problem with making it an Init option is new players won't be able to turn it off without looking through a tutorial. Having an options menu that let you toggle that sort of thing - along with sieges, population cap and the other basic YES/NO stuff - would be great. But then you can't even play DF without the wiki, and that's likely to stay the case until the Interface Arc.

[NW_Kohaku]

Didn't read the whole thing, but read a lot of argument.

I kind of like the idea of rubble. It would be cool to have to manage it, especially when the fort was locked up. And I could always dump it into the magma see, right?

BUT

I want elevators. Powered belts to carry it up and away.

Yes, magma sea dumping probably would be a "final solution", although I still think that we should have some magma pressure leading to some spurts of magma backflow if we dump too much stuff into magma. 

And elevators are already planned as part of improved mechanics and traps, along with other "moving fortress pieces".

[GoldenShadow]

Its a magma sea. The ocean doesn't rise if you dump rocks into it. Not any perceivable amount.

[darkflagrance]

Its a magma sea. The ocean doesn't rise if you dump rocks into it. Not any perceivable amount.

It depends on the depth of the sea and the amount of rocks. Land reclamation does occasionally happen you know.

[NW_Kohaku]

Its a magma sea. The ocean doesn't rise if you dump rocks into it. Not any perceivable amount.

Well, in the case of Martin, it was also being talked about in the case of a small vat of pump stacked magma - that should eventually grow in volume the more you pump into it.

Besides that, magma does have pressure, and does rise up from underground.  It would just be more likely to happen if you were constantly dumping things into it.  I'd like to see occasional "eruptions" of magma if you leave its boundaries too thin. (But which can be managed by having "release valves" into safe containers.) When magma wants out, it wants out. 

At the same time, the magma sea isn't quite the molten core of the planet - it has something underneath it, and is only about 50 feet deep or so. 

[Sadrice]

And is also extremely viscous, so might not flow quickly, which is why I suggested a slowish drainage/refill rate.

[NW_Kohaku]

And is also extremely viscous, so might not flow quickly, which is why I suggested a slowish drainage/refill rate.

Yes, but we're also sort of taking for granted the most unrealistic thing about magma in this game, which is that it always stays a constant temperature, even if pumped out of the earth for years, and can melt infinite material (as in, transferring its heat energy into that material) without ever dropping in temperature, even if it's a single tile filled with magma. 

Keeping current viscosity should be relatively fine. 

The thing about a possible eruption mechanic would be that it would probably try to just create, say, 10 tiles, or 70 * 1/7ths of magma starting at a certain point, and look for the path of least resistance from that point to put all that magma. 

If there's open air, it would just pump magma up into that.  If there's no open air, it would start testing different types of items blocking its path, including solid walls, for resistance values, and try to break down those materials if they have enough pressure (measured in how much magma it has to spew forth) to see if it breaks down a wall or a door or something. 

If not, then the magma simply waits until there is a change that will let it break through (like opening that door or mining a tile away) or else will wait with that existing pressure until the pressure rises again before trying to break through doors or walls.

If it does have the pressure, it punches through rock to create small magma pipes to fill, continuing until it is stopped. 

If magma recedes, it should leave behind igneous intrusive stone types instead of just empty tiles.  There may be a small chance of an igneous intrusive ore or gem.

[Martin]

Well, I'll point out that a long time ago, before Toady invented the 3rd dimension, rivers and magma rivers would flood. I suspect we'll see a return to that kind of random dynamic at some point, and I think Toady mentioned several years ago that he'd like to see eruptions, provided they aren't too catastrophic.


I also wouldn't be surprised if in the future using a magma forge 'consumed' 1/7 magma each time its used. That'd effectively offset the lack of cooling by requiring you to have to constantly fill (either through the automatic fill mechanism, or manually) your magma reservoir (pretend you have to remove the bit that's cooled and magically dispose of it). In either case, you'd have to keep a permanent access to the magma open (you could temporarily close it via floodgate, etc.) through which an eruption could do harm. It'd take a system that can now work well in a static state which is relatively invulnerable and force it into a dynamic state which makes you at least somewhat vulnerable even with good planning.


I really miss the seasonal floods. They were fun - particularly when you had no high ground to flee to and crossing the river was pretty much unavoidable.