Print

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

[Arkenstone]

So, I'm making this thread to carry on a discussion that has derailed the FotF discussion.

Spoiler: My take on the issue (click to show/hide)

I believe that we already have rubble to deal with, but in an abstracted form that fits so well into the game it's barely noticable.

Firstly, when a dwarf mines an area out it is abstracted that at least part of his time is spent hauling out rubble, placing abstracted supports, etc.  Where the rubble goes is also abstracted; however, much of it could be considered concentrated in the boulders.

Boulders are abstracted representations of all forms in which stone could be gathered.  If used for a statue, it is assumed to represent a single large block; if used for a road, it is thought of as gravel; if a wall is constructed of it, that wall is presumed to be backfill; and if hurled down a chasm -well, that's where all your rubble's been going.  Additionally, the size of a boulder might be larger than you'd think: moving it out could just be an abstraction of multiple trips.


And so we could be thought to already have the effects of rubble included in the game.  However, there is a point to be made for a direct representation instead of abstraction, as the closer the game follows reality the more potential enjoyment from the 'simulationist' point of view.

As with everything else, this must be weighed based on its individual merits.  I've seen a lot of 'shouting contests' between people who claim opposite 'facts' about the issue, for example: "clearing rubble will/won't be tedious".  This is not a fact, it's a value judgement, and everyone must form their own judgement based upon the facts.

Here are the facts, as near as I can tell them:

• Dealing with rubble can make for deeper immersion through realism.
• Dealing with rubble can potentially take a lot of realtime.
• The Rubble items will need memory.

The two downsides can, as has been pointed out, be mitigated by companion systems (ex. the recent hauling updates and better ways to deal with trash); however the fact remains that working with rubble with those systems in place will still be harder/slower/etc. than without rubble but WITH those systems still in place.

Therefore, any argument for rubble before those supporting systems have been released and tested by the general public must base its claims on how difficult it would be to effect under the current situation or stipulate their proposal as a long-term goal.


With all this being said, my personal value judgement would be that even without any flat-out 'downsides', increased realism in this area would actually make for lessened immersion and enjoyment, at least for me.  I don't think I'm alone in playing games to do things I can't/wouldn't do in real life though, and to me being able to mine out an entire mountaintop in an afternoon is so cool specifically because I appreciate how long it would take in real life.

[Buttery_Mess]

I'd like some sort of rubble system in the game just so it would make more sense. In reality, if you were to dig out an underground fortress, finding somewhere to put all the rubble would be your most major concern, and it's the reason why minecarts were invented. It might be a hassle, but Dwarf Fortress is a game about mitigating all those hassles. All games are about mitigating hassles.

[Arkenstone]

My response to the various ways proposed to make rubble manageable:

Yes, you've all got solutions that would mitigate the hassles of rubble sufficiently if Toady tried any one of them.  But the problem with rubble is that it requires such a system at all.  It's like trying to induct a 'physically unfit' person into the Marine Corps: sure, with a bit of extra exercise he could be running with the best of them, but why go to that extra effort when there are plenty of stronger guys to be had? (In this analogy, any of the dozen things above 'realistic mining' on the Eternal Suggestion board.)


PS @^: I get what you're saying, everyone likes a good challenge once in a while.  But on the contrary, sometimes people just want things to go their way.  There is a balance to be struck between the two, and while DF is already well on the challenging part of the scale rubble adds a new hassle without appreciatively increasing the reward, at least in my view.

[xeniorn]

I'm all for a suggestion I've seen on the FotF topic, with two separate designations: mining and quarrying. I would call it "digging" and quarrying though. In my mind, you'd need quarried blocks to get the big items and items not practically possible to be composed of multiple small stones, like chairs.

Digging would always drop something like it does at the moment, so it wouldn't be possible to "lose ore" due to inexperienced miners. Stuff can't just puff into smoke. But digging produces small rock chunks that are unusable for making stone furniture, you need quarried stone for that. That way, "rubble" is just something dropped after digging, alike the stone we have right now in everything but the fact it can't be used to make *furniture*.

Quarrying would automatically produce stone blocks. A stone block could be built into a nicer wall than dug out stone. Bear in mind that a mason wouldn't have to "smooth" the block before building it into a wall - he'd just carry the stone block to the designated spot and smooth it there and then.

Ideally, the change should be more conceptual than practical for most purposes. Digging is used for making room for your fortress and acquiring ores and for basic stone-using purposes, like building walls. If you want to build furniture, you have to quarry the stone. The important fact here is that quarrying would be much slower than digging, so you use it only if you really need stone blocks.

Ideally, a stone block should be abstracted to a "stone block pile

• " and rubble to "rubble
• ". When you dig a tile, you get say a rubble[8]. Mining skill only affects mining speed. When you quarry a tile, you get a stone block pile[1-4], depending on mining skill, and a rubble
• pile, where x is 6,4,2 or 0, depending on how much blocks you've acquired. A not-very-skilled miner should still be able to get stone block pile[3] relatively often, [1] tile should occur very rarely even for unskilled dwarves. A great miner would almost always produce [4] stacks.

A smooth wall would require 4 blocks to build, since a full tile yields maximally 4 blocks. A piece of furniture would require a single block, so the slowness of quarrying wouldn't affect net speed of producing furniture as much. As a result, no activity in a fortress would be severely affected by this mining change, while at the same time the "mass conservation" and "realism - mining is dirty and leaves rubble" folks would be satisfied.

I'm just going to stop now, since the post is getting a bit longish for most people to read.

So, tl;dr:

Two designations: quarry and mine. Quarry is slow and gets you blocks that are used for smooth walls and furniture, mine gets you rubble that is used for rough walls and small crafts (LARGE pots excluded).

[Loud Whispers]

Rubble - contaminant left behind by digging siegers.

~o.o~

[o_O[WTFace]]

I guess the rubble and mining stuff gets back to the whole sandbox vs game issue - Sim Fortress vs Dwarfcraft.  I'd like to see full on semi fluid rubble that must be cleared, mass conservation, slower mining based on rock hardness, XX(pick degradation)XX, cave in mechanics, airshaft requirements and smoke production from furnaces.  But then people who like megaprojects and dwarf legos are severely restricted in what they can do.  Some of those can be engineered around but you just won't be able to balance a whole fort on one copper support, clear out a full z level for the mayors room or cast ice tower a hundred stories tall.  IMO a good compromise is possible, likely involving steel supports and clownite suspension cables and init options.

Sandbox |--x-------| Hard ass game/sim
x is dwarf fortress.  At some point decisions will need to be made as to where the game ends up on the scale. 

And a suggestion for cavein mechanics:  Areas stressed beyond OSHA saftey limits blink yellow like the low traffic designations, areas stressed beyond their structural limits blink red like restricted traffic designations and gradually crack, crumble and collapse.  Things turning yellow would be an announcement, red a pause and recenter.  The blinking would be annoying but the idea is you need to fix the problem urgently and make it go away. 

[bluea]

I'll suggest the same thing I suggested in the FotF thread:

Think "stack of stone[10]" not "rubble".

A 'stack of pine bolts [25]' is treated as a single object by the game with a property (number of bolts in stack). So the whole 'death to zillions of objects for FPS!' goal is met. So the entire push can be to get things -stacking- properly. There shouldn't be a problem finding 'stone of the same type', or anything like that.

Then, let a -stack- of stone block the square. This adds a happy middle between the jarring "Quantum Stockpile" with 10,000 stone (and a dead dragon or three) sitting in a single square and "one stone per square" for "playing fair".

The goal isn't necessarily to make 100% accurate mass retention. But make something less ridiculous than the quantum stockpile that still playable and !!FUN!!

"Gravel" could just be inherent to the square until "cleaned up". Or gathered or whatever.

Dig -> stone + gravel-strewn floor.
Gather -> bag/cart of gravel + rough stone floor
Smooth -> smooth stone floor.

Gravel might be useful for getting -sand- through a crusher, as opposed to gathering it from the ground.

A key note would be to make it obvious and easy to "opt out". There are people running around with Speed:0 etc  for their megaproject. An init option "Number of stone to fill corridor" (or whatever) that can be legally set to 10,000....

[Arkenstone]

Or, instead of compacting multiple boulders into a stack, we could just reduce how many we get and increase how much they can be used for.

Hm... Well, stones drop 25% now but can be made into four blocks, so it's like 100% drops for constructions or 75% less stuff to dump otherwise...

[HiEv]

Carrying over a reply to someone from the "Future of the Fortress" thread:

Here's what I think:

Two different designations: Mining and Quarrying. Mining produces rubble instead of stone. Rubble can be used to build walls, smelt metal, pave roads, and make crafts. Gems dug by mining will always be small when cut.

Quarrying works like mining does now, except when an unskilled dwarf would produce nothing, they produce rubble instead. Stone are as they are now, except slower to carry by hand and to walk over. Ore stones produce the same amount of bars as ore rubble. Quarried gems have the chance to be cut into large gems and crafts.

Except for the "unskilled dwarf would produce nothing" bit, this is pretty much what I'd like to see.  I'd rather unskilled dwarves just be slower, while skilled ones are faster.

Personally, the reason I'd like to see rubble in the game because it adds both realism and complexity.  It's another thing you have to plan into the complex web that is Dwarf Fortress, and I enjoy that.

As for uses, besides concrete, I'd like to see sluice boxes, where you can use water to wash out the rubble, while simultaneously sifting it for valuable materials, such as gold, gems, or black sands.  Using sluice boxes would be more complicated, but it would also have its rewards for doing so.  Heck, imagine filling up a huge cistern overhead, and then using it to flush out all of the rubble from an entire level.  That sounds like potential !!FUN!! to me! 

Finally, for those who don't like the term "rubble", "tailings" is technically what the remaining bits of rock left over after extracting the valuable bits is called, and "overburden" is the rock and soil that lies between you and the valuable rocks and ores.  (That "tailings" link also includes all sorts of interesting ways for disposing of the tailings.)

[bombzero]

^lack of suggestions like this are why ive been consistently shooting down rubble suggestions.

most people say they want rubble for realism, i ask what it adds to the game, they respond "well bro, you can like, build walls, and stuff...."

so from what i have seen people write, it seems they want needless extra crap with no benefit, I would only be slightly annoyed by this, but the megaproject builder and other groups may just stop playing DF altogether if this was a hardcoded change.

now HiEv's ideas are actual BENEFITS to rubble, not one singular idea about what it could be used for.

sluice boxes and such systems would actually improve gameplay, and create a valid end process for all that rubble. while on the other hand, one only needs so many walls and roads, then your disposal method is gone, and you have the same issue we have with food, rocks, cloth, and a few other things right now. too much supply, aint shit to do with it.

[NW_Kohaku]

Posting to respond to FotF stuff:

but now your contradicting the goal of cutting down on items.


NW i think you are too set in your desire for this feature, you see an argument and immediately think, "how can I say this is wrong", instead of "well how is this a good idea". in other words, your becoming a U.S. senator 

Nonsense, senators think "which side of this argument has donated the most to my reelection campaign fund?" and maybe "can I stick them for a million more if I hold out a little on this?"

Anyway, I'm not contradicting myself.  As I said in the last response post to you, the point is that you will eliminate the rubble items one way or another before you go back to mining.  That means there is a low ceiling limit on how many stone-type items will be in the game at one time.

I guess I need to be a little more clear on this, but the idea is that once you have created a large enough pile of rubble from mining, that rubble has to be cleaned up before mining continues.  Your miners simply stop mining when they are in an area with too much rubble.  The reason we have overflows of boulders now that never get cleaned up currently is because we just let miners fly through stone without ever giving haulers a chance to clean up the mess until the mess is so huge that there is no way to ever really get a handle on the problem.  If miners simply automatically stop mining when you hit a critical density of rubble in the work area, and they have to just work on hauling it out (the way that dwarves will currently have to move junk out of the way when building a workshop) before they can start mining again, then it just serves to slow the process down the more waste rubble you have generated until you have reduced the overall amounts of rubble.

Thus, as I said, it's meant to reduce the numbers of items on the floor at a time by making a punishment for not cleaning your room, even if it is a counter-intuitive point.

And I'm not arguing for concrete or other "uses" for rubble because I don't believe it should have any.  Being a problem players have to get rid of is all the use the game function needs, in the same way that sleep or hunger doesn't have a "use", but forces players to deal with a problem.

Designating rubble to be moved sounds about as exciting as digging out a room in minecraft...

The difference is that you don't have to designate anything (other than the mining in the first place).  Minecraft is tedious because you have to do the mining from a first-person perspective without the ability to just throw your loyal minions at the problem once you have just designated the area to excavate and walk away. 

Again, rubble that prevents mining from occurring when it hits certain levels just means you have to wait longer for the dwarves to automatically go through their routines to haul it to the carts to get it all dumped into the atom-smasher or landfill.


will respond to this thread in subsequent posts.

[bombzero]

Being a problem players have to get rid of is all the use the game function needs,

why? no really, why should we add something that will cost fps, time, and dwarves. and all it accomplishes is being frustrating and time consuming?

[Askot Bokbondeler]

I guess the rubble and mining stuff gets back to the whole sandbox vs game issue - Sim Fortress vs Dwarfcraft.  I'd like to see full on semi fluid rubble that must be cleared, mass conservation, slower mining based on rock hardness, XX(pick degradation)XX, cave in mechanics, airshaft requirements and smoke production from furnaces.  But then people who like megaprojects and dwarf legos are severely restricted in what they can do.  Some of those can be engineered around but you just won't be able to balance a whole fort on one copper support, clear out a full z level for the mayors room or cast ice tower a hundred stories tall.  IMO a good compromise is possible, likely involving steel supports and clownite suspension cables and init options.

Sandbox |--x-------| Hard ass game/sim
x is dwarf fortress.  At some point decisions will need to be made as to where the game ends up on the scale. 

And a suggestion for cavein mechanics:  Areas stressed beyond OSHA saftey limits blink yellow like the low traffic designations, areas stressed beyond their structural limits blink red like restricted traffic designations and gradually crack, crumble and collapse.  Things turning yellow would be an announcement, red a pause and recenter.  The blinking would be annoying but the idea is you need to fix the problem urgently and make it go away.

this and ptw

fakeed

why? no really, why should we add something that will cost fps, time, and dwarves. and all it accomplishes is being frustrating and time consuming?

so would you rather designate stuff for digging and it gets dug instantly, like building walls in the sims?

[bombzero]

how is rubble the ideal solution to that? especially if it is intentionally left without use in game?

rubble HAS uses in real life, so by you guy's reasoning it should have them in game as well.
and why add this? im not asking what positives it has, im not asking how it helps people, im not asking how it makes the game harder.

im asking why add it to the game, why should toady spend time on this instead of combat, or economy, or farming?
how does this affect players other than the smaller percentage who want total realism?
how does this affect the game after the other dozens of areas of the game are changed? is it still fun or does it become annoying after everything is made harder?

if it has uses withing reason, then yes, put it in, its interesting and adds new depth to the game.
if it brings nothing to the game and makes everything take longer? no, leave it out.

consider this. rubble is added, mining now takes longer, it now takes longer to build your dining room, it now takes longer to create bedrooms (a nigh insurmountable task at present in some forts), it now takes longer to set up forging operations, it now takes longer to move anything as haulers are tied up clearing rubble, food starts to rot away, dwarves tantrum, goblins invade before you even have weapons or armor, all of your dwarves die while you were waiting for the lazy shits to clear out some rock. is this fun? or frustrating?

[Cellmonk]

I have always been disturbed by the notion that one could easily create a fortress completely detached from everything (no cavern, surface, or HFS connection). I feel like rubble means the entrance has a functional use, and there's actually a reason to fight off the siegers (besides metal).

I think it only would work with major improvements in the digging/hauling AI. Like NW was saying, this would need to be fully automatable. People talk about it being tedious. It is only tedious if it requires repetitive player input. Combined with rails, this problem would require initial player ingenuity

Currently, I dig straight down to the magma sea, and set up forges there by the time the first wave of migrants have arrived. Never do I need to touch any other type of forge setup. It feels unrealistic and somewhat boring that a single skilled dwarf could dig to the mantle in a matter of in game months without any work on the part of the player.

I'd finally have something to fill my uglier failed projects with, and not feel like I'm wasting my time. I like to think that an old useless chamber can become a useful garbage dump. Currently I use them for water storage, But you only need so much of that.

That's my input for now. I have been thinking of how the lack of an Anthill-like setup is disturbing, and plan to turn my extra stone into continuous piles of walls. But unfortunately, I can't make tattered sock walls like I do in my bedroom. And my fort dies from diving FPS before I can make my first pile of trash.

NW has done a pretty good job of convincing me that a feature like this is positive if done right. And I disagree that all it will be is frustrating and time consuming. For me, the lack of realism in mining has caused me to rage-quit many MANY forts.

Well I'm not a great debater. I hope I haven't dug myself in too much of a hole (with a pile of dirt beside it). But this is just a showcase of how I feel on the issue.

EDIT: I'm fully aware that mining takes longer with it. as does everything else. That's only if you don't set up a workable system. If haulers remove it at the speed the miners mine, it will be pretty much the same speed of clearing. If you have the miners do the hauling, it will take forever, and you will have deserved a violent goblin Christmas.