Print

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

[Buttery_Mess]

While I'd settle for rubble being left behind instead of stones, and passing through rubble slowing the dwarf down, I have to admit treating rubble like a fluid has a certain attractiveness. Whatever way you look at it though, I don't think we could expect to see Toady making slow-down rubble or anything like it until the combat speed/movement speed split goes ahead. Shallow water would then slow down dwarf motion, and then it's a hop skip and a jump from that to fluid-like rubble.

[NW_Kohaku]

Personally, I think designating a downward slope to just chuck the stuff would be faster.

Until it gets covered in rubble?

Then go up the mound you just filled up, and start dumping from there. 

Or, you can cut to the chase, and build a small tower and start dumping from that point so that it has more space to dump before you have to go a few more z-levels up above that. 

[NW_Kohaku]

I do believe I considered that possibility in my post.  It ended with the miner walling himself in with rubble.

That shouldn't happen - the miner should drag to the first tile that will not cause a wall-fill.  A simple flood-fill until hitting the first non-nearly-full tile would suffice, and flood-fills are hardly difficult to program, and are already used in the game.

I still would think that any major excavation (meaning - you are removing stone from a broad area, like excavating rock to form an entire block of housing or a large room or excavating a whole vein of ore) would probably result in the "bucket brigade" where a wheelbarrow team would run from the mining site to the nearest cart stop stockpile and back while the miner(s) would be bouncing from one clear mining tile to another inside that work area. 

I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like that arrangement would take a lot of micro to pull off.

Aside from the micromanagement of having a minecart track with stops (which you might consider micromanagement, but I don't think very many people are going to be terribly upset with the notion of using the neat new feature that we're getting), that shouldn't require much micromanagement. 

Given how Toady has explained this, you'll have a stockpile for the carts to pick up junk like rubble, and a place where it will be dumped off.  Presuming you have an auto-dumping site for rubble, you just need to swing your cart by that point.  Aside from that, haulers will just take rubble from the mining site to the cart's pickup point.  That should be as automatic as any other hauling job. 

If you aren't doing anything terribly major, or if you're just doing a single tile wide hallway, then yes, it's going to be slower - that was one of the specific cases that are supposed to be slower.

I don't follow; are you saying that 1-wide hallways are supposed to be slower to carve out than 3-wide ones?

Yes, of course, that's one of the things I've been talking about - excavation of "wide" projects like housing will take less time than the ones that should be more slow, like long exploratory tunnels (which are typically the 1-tile-wide versions of tunnels).  It's an entirely intended consequence to make narrow tunnels that go for length take longer while "breadth" digging should be relatively faster. 

Part of the point is to make players rethink how they dig to play to what the mechanics incentivize, rather than keep playing the way they always played. 

I am trying to work out if it is possible at all to include rubble in a way that 'ruins' the game for none (or at least few).  If it is not, then it is my opinion that it should be off by default if included at all.  I do not wish to argue the preceding sentence here, but am willing to on a separate thread if you desire.

The problem with that idea is that people will claim that almost anything can "ruin" a game, especially anything that takes longer to do.  It's an inevitable side-effect of having a game where there ARE going to be many different people with different playstyles that not everything is going to be enjoyed by everyone.

I mean, are you an Adventure Mode player?  How many people in this thread are?  If Toady spends a few more years of development time in Adventure Mode rather than Fortress Mode, that'll be hurting you guys indirectly, but does that mean that Toady shouldn't cater to the gameplay of people who will enjoy Adventure Mode (and possibly aren't even playing the game yet, but will once Adventure Mode is more robust)? 

Further, people claim improved sieges, especially tunneling units would "ruin" the game because those tunnelers would mess up the "natural" stone that they engrave in their legendary dining rooms, and they wouldn't want to have an ugly spot that isn't engraved. 

Does that mean we should never have tunneling units or improved sieges?  No, it would greatly enhance the gameplay experience for those who enjoy sieges and military gameplay in general.  (And, for the record, I'm not much of one for military, and would personally be very annoyed at tunneling into my dining hall, but I still recognize how much fun other people are going to have with that.) 

Saying that if anybody disagrees with the mechanic, then we shouldn't have added it to DF, we would have wound up not adding anything - what new features haven't been controversial in DF? 

[Saiko Kila]

Anything which creates more pointless hauling jobs will kill the game for me - unless it can be turned off easily, of course. Disposing of XXclothingXX is becoming ridiculous already. And I sure hope that no other fluid or fluid-like mechanics will be added to the game before bugs related to the existent one are corrected (which may require their rewrite/overhauling), I mean the "stagnant water" and wandering filth.

[vidboi]

Anything which creates more pointless hauling jobs will kill the game for me - unless it can be turned off easily, of course. Disposing of XXclothingXX is becoming ridiculous already. And I sure hope that no other fluid or fluid-like mechanics will be added to the game before bugs related to the existent one are corrected (which may require their rewrite/overhauling), I mean the "stagnant water" and wandering filth.

That's why we're trying to work out how rubble can be implemented in a way that won't require you to constantly haul it away (or at all in some cases) and for most ordinary situations deals with itself. The main reasons for implementing rubble are to slow down large expansions, especially downwards and interfering with large projects such as magma forges and trap corridors in order to stop them being ridculously easy to implement. I don't see how the bugs with stagnant or salty water would affect rubble (stagnant rubble?) and it's separate from contaminants.

Secondly, I do support NW_Kohaku that it should be relatively faster to dig wider tunnels in that it should take less time to dig 30 tiles in a 3x10 area that 30 in a 1x30 area. Obviously the 1x30 would still take you further, but it would be subsequently harder to clear and use and so a larger set up needs to be made before you can actually start using any veins or clusters that your exploratory miners find.

Finally on pathing. From my own observations I've noticed that an obstructed dwarf does not create an entirely new path to the target but instead creates a path to the tile after the obstructions and then continues from there. Let me illustrate this:

O = wall
D = Dwarf
X = target tile
_,|,/,\ = path
B = Obstruction

The intial path:
OOOOOOO
OX        O
O|         O
O|         O
O| OOO  O
O|         O
OD        O
OOOOOOO

The redirected path:
OOOOOOO
OX        O
O|         O
O\_____ O
OB OOO|O
O_____/ O
OD        O
OOOOOOO

Note that the dwarf does not path directly across the room to the target but instead back to where the path was blocked. I expect that this same mechanic could quite easily be implemented to deal with rubble blockages. (possibly dwarves could crawl through 6/7 rubble or similar in order to prevent blockages when no adjacent tile is free to shift rubble to?)

[Angel-of-Dusk]

Im just going to put my two cents here since everyone else is.

Why are we adding rubble again? Rubble just seems like... Well, problems. Seems like more items to deal with, more pathfinding to be done, and quite frankly, I can't handle much more of DF as it is. I understand some people have top end computers and all, and that fine. But rubble just seems like a small "detail" that would take up alot of resources.

Secondly, why are we focusing on rubble? Theres a bazillion other things that could add difficulty to the game, as well as depth. More social interactions, more city interactions, more in depth seiges. Rubble would just be a slight annoyance to later fortresses, and to be honnest, the "easy" part of the game is late game.

Pretty much, I don't see why rubble is such a big deal. Theres far more in depth things that could be added to improve difficulty with more player interactiblity and less resource drain.

If toady does it, I won't complain, as its kind of his lifes work. I just rather see something better be done that isn't just a minor hindrence to early game that would hit my FPS

[Angel-of-Dusk]

Also, sorry for double post, but I beleive this should be moved to suggestion forums.

This really just looks like a big suggestion thread after the first page.

[xeniorn]

Why are we adding rubble again? Rubble just seems like... Well, problems. Seems like more items to deal with, more pathfinding to be done, and quite frankly, I can't handle much more of DF as it is. I understand some people have top end computers and all, and that fine. But rubble just seems like a small "detail" that would take up alot of resources.

Secondly, why are we focusing on rubble? Theres a bazillion other things that could add difficulty to the game, as well as depth. More social interactions, more city interactions, more in depth seiges. Rubble would just be a slight annoyance to later fortresses, and to be honnest, the "easy" part of the game is late game.

Pretty much, I don't see why rubble is such a big deal. Theres far more in depth things that could be added to improve difficulty with more player interactiblity and less resource drain.

Not wanting to sound like a smartass or anything, but this is a thread devoted to rubble. The answer to "why are we focusing on rubble" is kind of straightforward...

After reading your comment I get the feeling you didn't exactly read through the entire topic. Quite understandable, seeing as it has huge walls of text on every page, but because of it, you seem to have missed the fact that points like "making it work in such a way it doesn't eat your fps" and "making it work in such a way that not focusing on rubble removal doesn't completely ruin your game" are pretty major debate focuses here.

And bear in mind we aren't "adding rubble" here. This is a thread where DF players comment and brainstorm on the problem of rubble, which is a task very useful for Toady if nothing else. By reading a summary of this topic, he can easily find out what are the players' standpoints on rubble so he can take it into consideration if he ever decided to implement anything like that. He can also get a lot of fresh ideas from it, reading other people's ideas really helps a man trying to solve a problem.

What you get as a result is that if rubble if ever implemented, it will be implemented faster and better, since some problems will be avoided simply because someone realized they would be a problem while participating in this thread. Just posting that you don't want rubble because you'd rather have something else and because you're afraid it'd hit your performance just isn't helpful, it serves no purpose. This is not a "Rubble - Yes or No" voting thread. Sorry if my "writing tone" is a bit harsh, it's not such on purpose.





For clarity, I'd just like to point out that there are actually 2 different topics being debated here, both referred to as "rubble". One is the problem of "mined stone should interfere with further digging" which can actually work without really introducing "rubble", simply by forcing you to remove the boulders as is while digging, instead of just leaving them lying around. The other one is the problem of making stone come in other forms than gigantic boulders, and differentiating between the usage of different-sized rock fragments.

[Angel-of-Dusk]

Why are we adding rubble again? Rubble just seems like... Well, problems. Seems like more items to deal with, more pathfinding to be done, and quite frankly, I can't handle much more of DF as it is. I understand some people have top end computers and all, and that fine. But rubble just seems like a small "detail" that would take up alot of resources.

Secondly, why are we focusing on rubble? Theres a bazillion other things that could add difficulty to the game, as well as depth. More social interactions, more city interactions, more in depth seiges. Rubble would just be a slight annoyance to later fortresses, and to be honnest, the "easy" part of the game is late game.

Pretty much, I don't see why rubble is such a big deal. Theres far more in depth things that could be added to improve difficulty with more player interactiblity and less resource drain.

Not wanting to sound like a smartass or anything, but this is a thread devoted to rubble. The answer to "why are we focusing on rubble" is kind of straightforward...

After reading your comment I get the feeling you didn't exactly read through the entire topic. Quite understandable, seeing as it has huge walls of text on every page, but because of it, you seem to have missed the fact that points like "making it work in such a way it doesn't eat your fps" and "making it work in such a way that not focusing on rubble removal doesn't completely ruin your game" are pretty major debate focuses here.

And bear in mind we aren't "adding rubble" here. This is a thread where DF players comment and brainstorm on the problem of rubble, which is a task very useful for Toady if nothing else. By reading a summary of this topic, he can easily find out what are the players' standpoints on rubble so he can take it into consideration if he ever decided to implement anything like that. He can also get a lot of fresh ideas from it, reading other people's ideas really helps a man trying to solve a problem.

What you get as a result is that if rubble if ever implemented, it will be implemented faster and better, since some problems will be avoided simply because someone realized they would be a problem while participating in this thread. Just posting that you don't want rubble because you'd rather have something else and because you're afraid it'd hit your performance just isn't helpful, it serves no purpose. This is not a "Rubble - Yes or No" voting thread. Sorry if my "writing tone" is a bit harsh, it's not such on purpose.





For clarity, I'd just like to point out that there are actually 2 different topics being debated here, both referred to as "rubble". One is the problem of "mined stone should interfere with further digging" which can actually work without really introducing "rubble", simply by forcing you to remove the boulders as is while digging, instead of just leaving them lying around. The other one is the problem of making stone come in other forms than gigantic boulders, and differentiating between the usage of different-sized rock fragments.

>Disagree with my point
>Spend 3+ paragraphs saying I didn't read/insulting me/fancily saying I'm ignorant
>Over opinions
>2012

I shiggidy Diggity doo.

Ethier way, this thread really should be moved to suggestions. I'll stop posting here, as I really don't like the tone thats going on, and wish the best of luck to the rest of you.

Also, if your going to make offensive points, don't say "I don't mean to be harsh". Its saying you already know your points are already brash and offensive.

[Sadrice]

No, you said something in a somewhat insulting way, and he responded with why he disagrees (I a significantly less insulting way).  If you can't handle people disagreeing with you after you disagree with them, this really isn't the best thread for you.  You're right, though, this thread has a disagreeable tone and an overabundance of people that get easily offended and escalate things to flamewar status.

[Cellmonk]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why are we adding rubble again? Rubble just seems like... Well, problems. Seems like more items to deal with, more pathfinding to be done, and quite frankly, I can't handle much more of DF as it is. I understand some people have top end computers and all, and that fine. But rubble just seems like a small "detail" that would take up alot of resources.

Secondly, why are we focusing on rubble? Theres a bazillion other things that could add difficulty to the game, as well as depth. More social interactions, more city interactions, more in depth seiges. Rubble would just be a slight annoyance to later fortresses, and to be honnest, the "easy" part of the game is late game.

Pretty much, I don't see why rubble is such a big deal. Theres far more in depth things that could be added to improve difficulty with more player interactiblity and less resource drain.

Not wanting to sound like a smartass or anything, but this is a thread devoted to rubble. The answer to "why are we focusing on rubble" is kind of straightforward...

After reading your comment I get the feeling you didn't exactly read through the entire topic. Quite understandable, seeing as it has huge walls of text on every page, but because of it, you seem to have missed the fact that points like "making it work in such a way it doesn't eat your fps" and "making it work in such a way that not focusing on rubble removal doesn't completely ruin your game" are pretty major debate focuses here.

And bear in mind we aren't "adding rubble" here. This is a thread where DF players comment and brainstorm on the problem of rubble, which is a task very useful for Toady if nothing else. By reading a summary of this topic, he can easily find out what are the players' standpoints on rubble so he can take it into consideration if he ever decided to implement anything like that. He can also get a lot of fresh ideas from it, reading other people's ideas really helps a man trying to solve a problem.

What you get as a result is that if rubble if ever implemented, it will be implemented faster and better, since some problems will be avoided simply because someone realized they would be a problem while participating in this thread. Just posting that you don't want rubble because you'd rather have something else and because you're afraid it'd hit your performance just isn't helpful, it serves no purpose. This is not a "Rubble - Yes or No" voting thread. Sorry if my "writing tone" is a bit harsh, it's not such on purpose.





For clarity, I'd just like to point out that there are actually 2 different topics being debated here, both referred to as "rubble". One is the problem of "mined stone should interfere with further digging" which can actually work without really introducing "rubble", simply by forcing you to remove the boulders as is while digging, instead of just leaving them lying around. The other one is the problem of making stone come in other forms than gigantic boulders, and differentiating between the usage of different-sized rock fragments.

>Disagree with my point
>Spend 3+ paragraphs saying I didn't read/insulting me/fancily saying I'm ignorant
>Over opinions
>2012

I shiggidy Diggity doo.

Ethier way, this thread really should be moved to suggestions. I'll stop posting here, as I really don't like the tone thats going on, and wish the best of luck to the rest of you.

Also, if your going to make offensive points, don't say "I don't mean to be harsh". Its saying you already know your points are already brash and offensive.

I don't mean to be harsh... but did you read Xeniorn's full response to your post?

If you would like to argue that all of the more complicated mining system suggested on this thread (involving "rubble") are bad ideas, and cannot be improved, please argue that. But make sure you know what those systems are first.

Edit: You might have a point about moving this to the suggestions forum.

[NW_Kohaku]

We don't need to move this over into the suggestions forum.

The last thread that was up near the top of the suggestions forum, I already copy-pasted the most relevant suggestion portions into: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108713.0

Further, there were already a half-dozen active threads in the past month about hauling/soil/rubble, anyway.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108711.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108670.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108861.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108767.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=109454.0

[CodexDraco]

So for people that wanted to make mining harder, it looks like boulders can hurt your miners now. Possibly unintended and we have to see if Toady keeps it.

[Angel-of-Dusk]

We don't need to move this over into the suggestions forum.

The last thread that was up near the top of the suggestions forum, I already copy-pasted the most relevant suggestion portions into: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108713.0

Further, there were already a half-dozen active threads in the past month about hauling/soil/rubble, anyway.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108711.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108670.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108861.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=108767.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=109454.0

Point is, this is a dwarf fortress discussion board. There are no plans for rubble. Its a suggestion, a popular one it seems, by the community.

It belongs in suggestions forums, because its a suggestion.

As to Cellmonk: I read his post. It was rather offensive and a strewn out insult layered with opinion. Opnions are cool, insults are not. My original post was my opinion and thoughts on the matter. I apologize if you didn't see my first post.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Not wanting to sound like a smartass or anything...quite understandable... Sorry if my "writing tone" is a bit harsh, it's not such on purpose.

he was actually very polite and diplomatic. your post on the other hand was dismissive and showed little consideration for other's opinions on the subject, and it did give the feeling that you skimmed over a great part of the thread. overal, you did come off as more hostile and no one complained about it