Print

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

[Mike Mayday]

As it is now, all ramps, slopes and stairs are simply leading up and down in all directions. While it makes sense for spiral staircases, normal stairs and ramps should have a specific direction.
I assume the obstacle here is the lack of symbols to denote those, so for now there's nothing to do about it. But if we were to receive an extended (i.e. unlimited) set of symbols, the gfx people would be able to use this while ASCII people could still use the up/down triangles (or maybe more symbols, if they're not too strict about it .

[Silverionmox]

Yes, that's about time. It would be much simpler for newbies also.

They could function like walls from the thick side. The sloped sides could allow creatures on foot to pass, and offer some protection and delay fluids like fortifications.

[Derakon]

This has the same issue that all one-way requests have: it borks pathfinding. Thus, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

[Michael]

This has the same issue that all one-way requests have: it borks pathfinding. Thus, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

That's not what he's talking about.  The proposed ramps would be two-way in the sense you are talking about.

In fact, reforming ramps to have a definite direction would actually remove one-way (in your sense) pathing.
At present there is a known exploit that by building ramps in a certain illogical way, it is possible to create a route that can only be traversed down.

(I'm not sure how, or if, the present pathing algorithm copes with the exploit.)

[neek]

This has the same issue that all one-way requests have: it borks pathfinding. Thus, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Code: [Select]

+++
WRW
+++

Where W = wall, and R = ramp, and + = floor, the ramp functions for both. What he wants is a ramp that functions for one of those walls, both not both. This would mean a separate ramp tile for left-facing, right-facing, north-facing, and south-facing ramps. This doesn't even consider corner-ramps, which I could foresee as a possible problem. While you could select the face (in the case of the above example), generating might prove problems.

Urist McHauler cancels move item to stockpile: Cannot find path.
Player cancels Dwarf Fortress: Throws computer on account that all ramps are facing the wrong way.

[Mike Mayday]

I edited the title because it was misleading. If you look closely, I did place corner ramps on that mockup along with some other weird ramps, even though I don't think some of them are necessary, like the 1-tile wide ramp-rifts or however you want to call those- If they were two-tile wide, they'd make more sense and only use the normal and corner ramps.

[Draco18s]

At present there is a known exploit that by building ramps in a certain illogical way, it is possible to create a route that can only be traversed down.

(I'm not sure how, or if, the present pathing algorithm copes with the exploit.)

Build a wall and a ramp.  Build a floor opposite the ramp on the top side of the wall.  Build a ramp under the floor.  Remove floor.

Dwarves will only path UP that second ramp, but not down unless there is no other path.  I can confirm this, as I am using the trick to separate incoming dwarves and returning dwarves from my megaconstruction (though at this point it does little to help pathfinding) and once had to close off half of it due to goblins (the other path was behind traps).  Dwarves would stack up at the "up only" ramp for a moment, then path through normally.

[Bricks]

It needs to be done anyway; ramps are currently totally confusing.  For placing ramps, and later, deciphering them if you use ASCII, you should be able to set the entry and exit sides (entry being where you approach them on the current z-level, exit being where you approach them on a higher/lower z-level), with obvious restrictions like you can't enter into empty space, or enter/exit a ramp from the same direction (unless it is from another ramp on the same level).  That way, you can still have any sort of crazy ramp that the world gen requires.  Further, actions that would disable ramps such as building or mining should show a warning during designation.

[Mike Mayday]

Seriously... they're somewhat ok once you get used to them (even though they're still bugging me) but I remember having lots of problems understanding them once 3d DF came out.
I updated the mockup with a little addition.

Also, since we're talking about confusing things, what the hell is up with brooks? Why aren't they made with a simple channel with ramps on both sides?

[Bricks]

Brooks are supremely confusing.  I'm not sure what should be done about them.  It would be better if they were just ramped (like you said) and shallow water, so dwarves could wade across them.

[Granite26]

Yeah, no, I'm pretty sure that's widely agreed, the problem is that the current flows system doesn't work well with constant depth 4 deep....

[Tack]

I thought that brooks were just a pit of water filled with loose rocks and stones, so that you can walk on it, while there is water underneath, and the 7/7 water underneath is just a representation of the water flowing through and around the rocks.
Yes, I know the single huge hole in that theory, but it works best.

Also, Visual Fortress managed to deal with ramps really well.

[Granite26]

A brook is INTENDED to be a shallow... well, brook.  Something that you can wade across, or use stepping stones to get across.... The kind of place you fly fish.



The problem is, the system can't recreate that.  It's only good at making 7/7 rivers.  Hence, the current hack.

[Mike Mayday]

Wouldn't simply running lower amounts of water work?

[Granite26]

No...  I don't really know why, but I can see a number of potential problems.