Print

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

[wyldmage]

My main input on the idea is to take any change to mining and focus on how FPS issues related to object count can be improved, and tie that all in to adding some extra realism:

1)  Mining/digging + quarrying distinction.  This should definitely be in.  It adds a strong flavor element, as well as (if the other suggestions occur) potentially reducing FPS slowdown.

2)  Effective crafting recipe to remove rubble from the game.  Whether this is a for-profit move, or simply mixing the rubble with fluids to create cement for construction doesn't matter. 
--Currently when playing DF, there are 3 consistent sources of FPS lag (with water flow when I open megaprojects being a non-consistent source):  a)  # of dorfs  b)  # of animals  c)  # of objects, primarily stone.  I can handle A by selecting an upper limit on my population.  I can handle B by building plenty of meat factories (and/or not trading for animals).  But there is really no way to currently reduce the # of stones in your fort, since construction just 'masks' them.

3)  Allow rubble to be used in the construction of a "natural wall".  Once constructed, it is not labelled as construction, but becomes just natural terrain again (also completely removing it from the FPS equation).

4)  Create several fundamental uses for rubble that allow creative fortgineers to have some fun (or !!FUN!!).

5)  Make it streamlined so it doesn't take extra steps to manage.  Reduce base digging slightly time since the time spent moving rubble around will easily make up for changes (and then some, if you actually use the rubble for anything).

[Askot Bokbondeler]

Not including it won't push away people who want it...

actually... i have stopped playing fortress mode for some versions now, and i don't think i'll be playing it for some further versions either. i'm not really the kind that would make a scene and try and go out with a bang(or a bohoo), but i'm losing hope that i'll ever enjoy fortress mode again, precisely because of the choices toady has been making on this kind of subjects. as i've stated before, i respect the man and his decisions, it's his game, i just expected something diferent...

not that i think you'd care or something, i just wanted to tell you you're wrong

Just out of curiosity, could you be more specific in some of the changes that you haven't enjoyed, and what you would have rather had?

it's not so much changes i haven't enjoyed, but some statements made by toady made me feel i had expectations for this game that might have been misplaced. i was hoping for a slower, more detailed game, while statements toady made on lighting, detailed workshops and tools, equipment degradation, waste management, rubble, and others, make me feel the game isn't as focused on realism and detail as i wished,
it also bothers me that some areas receive a much more detailed treatment than others, an incoherent level of abstraction breaks immersion in my opinion. i feel toady hasn't made his mind where he wants to take the game, and that feeds the hopes of several groups that are bound to be left out in the cold if the game ever takes a specific direction

[HiEv]

Worlds with wide open caverns will become popular. Just dig a garbage chute down to the first cavern and dump all your rubble there!

For what it's worth, that's more or less what's done in the real world too.

See the Wikipedia article on Tailings I linked to earlier in this thread (here).

Also, considering the different opinions on what is fun, perhaps we'll need a simple "Realism" slider plus an "Advanced Options" for people who want more control than the defaults that slider gives.  That way newbies could start out with low realism and learn the game, and then try the higher realism levels for additional challenges and the new possibilities they create.

Personally, I'd like bellows for airshafts, support beams, rubble, and all that complex stuff, but I know not everyone else would enjoy that.  So, does this sound reasonable?

[NW_Kohaku]

Also, considering the different opinions on what is fun, perhaps we'll need a simple "Realism" slider plus an "Advanced Options" for people who want more control than the defaults that slider gives.  That way newbies could start out with low realism and learn the game, and then try the higher realism levels for additional challenges and the new possibilities they create.

Actually, I think the best form of "tutorial mode" would be to just make the Testing Arena have a Fortress Mode analogue the way that it has an Adventure Mode analogue. 

New players could understand how the game works by just plunking down some dwarves, some resources, and work on building things. 

You could have some special pre-set-up tutorials, as well, like having the player designate a hospital, and then when the player thinks they're ready, they can pull the lever, and a dwarf is spawned with some contaminants on him that causes a nasty syndrome.  Elsewise, there's a goblin sieges on the other end of a drawbridge, and you have a certain number of minutes to train conscript dwarves up to fighting them.

[greenwatering]

honestly, the learning curve on DF isn't that bad with the help of the wiki.
except for the parts of the game that are bugged or unnaturally hard to use (military screen imo), the game is really easy.
anyone with any kind of spacial reasoning can understand designations over multiple z-levels.

lately i've stopped playing because the game has gotten too boring.
i'm all for max realism: i'm like Askot, waiting for more detail.


aside from that rant... when you say 1:1 rubble, do you mean that mining one tile would immediately fill said tile with impassible rubble?
if not, wouldn't the (small) pile of rubble appear in the place of said mined wall?
wouldn't this mean that unless you were digging strait down that there would never be impassible rubble?

[Courtesy Arloban]

Also, considering the different opinions on what is fun, perhaps we'll need a simple "Realism" slider plus an "Advanced Options" for people who want more control than the defaults that slider gives.  That way newbies could start out with low realism and learn the game, and then try the higher realism levels for additional challenges and the new possibilities they create.

Actually, I think the best form of "tutorial mode" would be to just make the Testing Arena have a Fortress Mode analogue the way that it has an Adventure Mode analogue. 

New players could understand how the game works by just plunking down some dwarves, some resources, and work on building things. 

You could have some special pre-set-up tutorials, as well, like having the player designate a hospital, and then when the player thinks they're ready, they can pull the lever, and a dwarf is spawned with some contaminants on him that causes a nasty syndrome.  Elsewise, there's a goblin sieges on the other end of a drawbridge, and you have a certain number of minutes to train conscript dwarves up to fighting them.

That would be a neat feature,  alternately the testing arena could incorporate elements from fortress mode.  The same as your idea, but fortress being the default setting + ability to drop down enemies of the fort to test defense, and the ability to assume control of a creature switching it to more of an adventure mode setting.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

aside from that rant... when you say 1:1 rubble, do you mean that mining one tile would immediately fill said tile with impassible rubble?
if not, wouldn't the (small) pile of rubble appear in the place of said mined wall?
wouldn't this mean that unless you were digging strait down that there would never be impassible rubble?

there are several ways of doing it. if toady implements liquid-like flow behaviour to sand tiles, mining a tile could turn it into a 7/7 rubble filled tile that would flow onto adjacent empty tiles like this

Code: [Select]

[+][+]____________
[+]_3__2__1__1____and if you kept mining, the next tile would stack on top of the first

Code: [Select]

[+]_3__2__1__1____
_5__4__3__2__1____
one unit of rubble would have little effect on the movement of dwarves, 2 would hinder movement, 3 would hinder more and work as a ramp, 4 would work as a wall tile, obstructing the path but being walkable in the level above, and a dwarf encased in 4/7 rubble would be imobilized until he was rescued, while 5/7 would suffocate encased creatures. dwarves should be smart enough not to encase themseves in rubble

a simpler system could be created with small piles of rubble, piles of rubble and large piles of rubble, hindering movement somewhat, hindering movement even more and working as a ramp, and working as a natural wall

[NW_Kohaku]

Yes, the simpler system I was proposing would be to make rubble fall into the tile that the miner was mining from, only.  If there was a large amount of rubble in the tile already from just previously having mined that tile, then mining would be delayed until rubble was removed.

And again, we don't have to use a number like 7.  We can just have 3, with 2 rubble sitting in the mined-out tile, and 1 rubble entering the miner's tile.  Mining cannot take place then when the tile the miner stands on has 2 rubble in it already (or it would fill up when he started mining).

[Martin]

a simpler system could be created with small piles of rubble, piles of rubble and large piles of rubble, hindering movement somewhat, hindering movement even more and working as a ramp, and working as a natural wall

I'd disassociate the movement from the pile feature. If Toady is implementing object volumes, then the simple solution to movement is to base it on the occupied volume of a tile. If an open tile has a volume of 100 (whatever units), and there's a bin of volume 75 there, then movement would be 25% of normal. If there's another dwarf there of volume 25, then each would move at 75% normal. There might be a minimum speed of 10% of normal, even if the space is >100% occupied as capping volume is unbelievably problematic to solve. Imagine having to shove bins around like some puzzle simply to access an empty tile in the back because entering a tile with a bin where a bin currently exists would be otherwise impossible. Rubble would have volume as well and would simply calculate along with everything else. This would be the most universal solution.


Separately, I like your flow idea combined with wyldmages ideas before. I'd like to see tailings be able to be dumped above ground and naturally become part of the terrain, as if it were a surface tile at embark - growing grass, trees, etc. Rubble would flow down the sides piling up into ramps and eventually fill in and become soil tiles themselves. With the automated cart dumping, this could be almost entirely automated and allow for players to level terrain, create earthen berms, barrows, or even open fields on mountainous terrain, fill in ponds, etc.


In the other thread I had proposed that rubble could also be destroyed by allowing it to be smelted for any residual metals. Each bit of rubble would proportionately contain a small fraction of a bar of each type of metal in the layer biome. It would only be feasible using magma as fuel, but you would have an almost limitless source of metal this way if you were willing to devote the labor to the task. This would help appease the 'never enough metal' folks. And since you would destroy the rubble in the process, it'd be yet another way to clear the item count. Assuming you could break boulders into rubble, you could effectively destroy everything you mine, other than the metal that results.

[mdqp]

I think the idea of adding rubble has its merits, but as just a challenge, it wouldn't add that much (it would be very similar to slow down mining speed, for most aspects), and for possible new uses, the game has enough variety for the moment (I am not against it, but I don't feel it's a pressing issue, right now). Changing radically the farming system, instead, would be definitely higher on a theoretical list of welcome changes/additions (even here, though, I don't think biology in the fantasy world of DF will resemble the one in our world, so how much it will need to be realistic will open up a debate). What I am trying to say, is that most will agree that this is a long-term goal, if it will ever be added to the game. As a side note, I don't think that adding rubble just for the challenge is good (I like it, if it's for the added realism of it, though), because if challenge is the point, we can add as much as we want, we can artificially create it, and so it's arguably a non-issue (Toady could add heart attacks, which are realistic, especially if we consider their lifestyle, or he could add Gods killing random people, which I would consider less realistic, but the result would be random deaths and more challange in both cases... And if you want to argue that you can't plan against those, I might tell you that we could get more control over their diet or build altars to counter this chance, so it would suddendly have some logistic aspect to it, if we added more). What I mean is, that such an addition isn't a priority, it's as challenging as anything else could be, and could be easily mimicked in its results by simply slowing down the mining (is that hardcoded?) but on the plus side is definitely more realistic (mass disappearing is a little jarring), and might give your idle dwarves a purpose in life (but that's only an issue because right now you simply get too many migrants). Sorry for being a little repetitive, I am not a native english speaker, so I am not sure I was able to fully convey my thoughts on this, and I didn't find a better way to word it.

[Manveru Taurënér]

To just slow down mining instead as many have suggested wouldn't have nearly the same effect though, even if they both act to slow down mining. Rubble would mean as have been noted that it gets harder and harder the deeper you mine, as the distance you have to move your rubble increases. That's the kind of stuff that adds depth and makes mining more interesting. Just slowing down mining by changing the code would'nt have that effect and would only mitigate a small part of what many are arguing is wrong with mining.

[Andeerz]

Worlds with wide open caverns will become popular. Just dig a garbage chute down to the first cavern and dump all your rubble there!

For what it's worth, that's more or less what's done in the real world too.

See the Wikipedia article on Tailings I linked to earlier in this thread (here).

Also, considering the different opinions on what is fun, perhaps we'll need a simple "Realism" slider plus an "Advanced Options" for people who want more control than the defaults that slider gives.  That way newbies could start out with low realism and learn the game, and then try the higher realism levels for additional challenges and the new possibilities they create.

Personally, I'd like bellows for airshafts, support beams, rubble, and all that complex stuff, but I know not everyone else would enjoy that.  So, does this sound reasonable?

Yes.  Very reasonable indeed.

And rubble FTW.

[Iapetus]

Sand, incidentally, erodes further into silt, then clay, then finally into kaoline, which is literally at the point where molecules are broken apart to make nothing but individual atoms.  Loam is just a combination of sand, silt, and clay in roughly equal measure.

Just a minor quibble:

You're mixing up mineral types and particle sizes.

In sedimentology, "sand", "silt", and "clay" are all the names of particle sizes (2mm - 62.5um,  62.5um - 4um, and <4um respectively).  In this sense, sand will wear down into silt, which will wear down into clay.

However, "clay" is also a family of minerals (sheets of hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates).  Quartz sand (the commonest sort of sand, for the reasons you gave) will never turn into this sort of clay, because it is a completely different mineral.  Kaolin/kaolinite is a particular type of clay mineral (Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄).  It is definitely not atomised rock, which would be a chemically unstable mess of highly reactive elements like O and Al that would instantly combine to make something else.

Loam isn't just a roughly even mix of sand, silt and clay - it needs humus as well (that's decomposed organic matter, not to be confused with hummus, the Middle-Eastern dip).

[mdqp]

To just slow down mining instead as many have suggested wouldn't have nearly the same effect though, even if they both act to slow down mining. Rubble would mean as have been noted that it gets harder and harder the deeper you mine, as the distance you have to move your rubble increases. That's the kind of stuff that adds depth and makes mining more interesting. Just slowing down mining by changing the code would'nt have that effect and would only mitigate a small part of what many are arguing is wrong with mining.

I think that only happens if you don't have magma, so it's only in the early stages of the game. Also, if rubble gets even only one use, it will reduce itself over time, so it would only work like that if it never gets a use (also, if it gets uses, you can put the "rubble pile closer to the mines as you remove it).

[NW_Kohaku]

Just a minor quibble:

You're mixing up mineral types and particle sizes.

In sedimentology, "sand", "silt", and "clay" are all the names of particle sizes (2mm - 62.5um,  62.5um - 4um, and <4um respectively).  In this sense, sand will wear down into silt, which will wear down into clay.

However, "clay" is also a family of minerals (sheets of hydrous aluminium phyllosilicates).  Quartz sand (the commonest sort of sand, for the reasons you gave) will never turn into this sort of clay, because it is a completely different mineral.  Kaolin/kaolinite is a particular type of clay mineral (Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄).  It is definitely not atomised rock, which would be a chemically unstable mess of highly reactive elements like O and Al that would instantly combine to make something else.

Loam isn't just a roughly even mix of sand, silt and clay - it needs humus as well (that's decomposed organic matter, not to be confused with hummus, the Middle-Eastern dip).

The note on humus being part of the definition of loam is new to me, but I gained almost all my knowledge on this subject over the Internet, so I'm not surprised when I find holes in my knowledge. 

Other than that, yes, I know the differences between "clay" the colloid grain size, and "clay" as in what you use in a kiln to make ceramics.  However, I wasn't advocating making clay out of sand at the time, so it wasn't something I was going into at the time. 

In the other thread I had proposed that rubble could also be destroyed by allowing it to be smelted for any residual metals. Each bit of rubble would proportionately contain a small fraction of a bar of each type of metal in the layer biome. It would only be feasible using magma as fuel, but you would have an almost limitless source of metal this way if you were willing to devote the labor to the task. This would help appease the 'never enough metal' folks. And since you would destroy the rubble in the process, it'd be yet another way to clear the item count. Assuming you could break boulders into rubble, you could effectively destroy everything you mine, other than the metal that results.

This is something that I think would go too far. 

Magma is already something that is an infinite free fuel supply and horribly exploitable as-is. 

Letting you smelt metals out of rubble and clear away all the rubble by doing so would basically render the dumping aspect of the rubble meaningless, and encourage the proliferation of rubble, which rubble is inherently there to discourage.  It runs counter to the whole purpose of rubble to let you just vaporize it all for a useful resource.

I think the idea of adding rubble has its merits, but as just a challenge, it wouldn't add that much (it would be very similar to slow down mining speed, for most aspects), and for possible new uses, the game has enough variety for the moment (I am not against it, but I don't feel it's a pressing issue, right now). Changing radically the farming system, instead, would be definitely higher on a theoretical list of welcome changes/additions (even here, though, I don't think biology in the fantasy world of DF will resemble the one in our world, so how much it will need to be realistic will open up a debate). What I am trying to say, is that most will agree that this is a long-term goal, if it will ever be added to the game. As a side note, I don't think that adding rubble just for the challenge is good (I like it, if it's for the added realism of it, though), because if challenge is the point, we can add as much as we want, we can artificially create it, and so it's arguably a non-issue (Toady could add heart attacks, which are realistic, especially if we consider their lifestyle, or he could add Gods killing random people, which I would consider less realistic, but the result would be random deaths and more challange in both cases... And if you want to argue that you can't plan against those, I might tell you that we could get more control over their diet or build altars to counter this chance, so it would suddendly have some logistic aspect to it, if we added more). What I mean is, that such an addition isn't a priority, it's as challenging as anything else could be, and could be easily mimicked in its results by simply slowing down the mining (is that hardcoded?) but on the plus side is definitely more realistic (mass disappearing is a little jarring), and might give your idle dwarves a purpose in life (but that's only an issue because right now you simply get too many migrants). Sorry for being a little repetitive, I am not a native english speaker, so I am not sure I was able to fully convey my thoughts on this, and I didn't find a better way to word it.

The thing is, oftentimes "Toady should focus more on X, not Y.  Y should wait until after X." is generally a non-issue.  Toady seems to ignore most discussions on suggestions until he feels its time to work on that issue, and then he reads what's been written about them. 

We're not convincing him what to work on next when we say things like how we shouldn't discuss such-and-such a topic until such-and-such a thing gets done, and it only muddles the issue we were talking about in the first place by having to argue about how something IS important enough to talk about now. 

Rather, suggestions and discussions should be about ideal solutions once Toady has time to actually tackle all the related issues.  We can talk about things that won't be acted upon for years to come and get to a conclusion on these things long before Toady has time to work on them.  I do very much hope Toady will get to farming soon, I've got quite a bit of interest in that topic, but that doesn't mean there should be any short-changing of any other topic to be discussed because farming is "more important". 

I still think there is a lot more to talk about with regards to mining.  I still want to see that "Minesweeper" style of mining game, where you can find clues in the nature of the walls you are excavating as to what minerals or possible hazards are nearby, and where you have to make guesses and take risks and tread carefully when you mine to try to find the rewards and avoid the hazards while mining.  These could, of course, be entirely realistic hazards of mining, such as pockets of trapped hazardous gasses or pressurized magma chambers, while, for example, quartz crystals might indicate a gold vein nearby.