Print

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

[guale]

I bleive this is what they were going for. I could get it to work for individual dwarves but not on wagons.

By a happy coincidence I tunneled straight into a cluster of magnetite right on the corner of some platinum in it on a map I thought only had copper (and one vein of it at that).

[Draco18s]

OK, I see what you're getting at now.  And you can't access all 8 floor space on the top, as the down ramps on Z-1 aren't walls, and as such the upramp doesn't supply access to the floors above them.

In any case, I've had issues with:


Z-0:
+++
VVV
...

Z-1:
OOO
^^^
VVV

Z-2:
OOO
OOO
^^^


For some reason dwarves refused to path up the the top where there was an item marked for dumping (yes, refuse and dump settings were correct).  I'm not saying that it's like that in all cases, as I haven't done extensive testing, but I took it to imply that you can't walk up a ramp and end up on a ramp.

Also, if I had some 3D modeling software, I could build a four-helix based slope that would conform to that layout (Typoman's at least, guale's would be trickier).

[guale]

Nevermind.

[Typoman]

i am sure what i showed works. i remember doing it, though memory can be faulty

[qwertyuiopas]

I bleive this is what they were going for. I could get it to work for individual dwarves but not on wagons.

By a happy coincidence I tunneled straight into a cluster of magnetite right on the corner of some platinum in it on a map I thought only had copper (and one vein of it at that).

Would/could likely be 4 half-ramps down and 4 up, all leading to a centre platform.

[Mike Mayday]

also we really need a monospace font available for doing diagrams.

Use the code tags.

Maybe that's the problem here; you have an inherent need to visualize everything and some abstract concepts are just better off unvisualized.

Problem is, a RAMP is hardly an abstract concept.

The suggestion of removing the so-called multi-directional ramps and having the player decide which direction they go does nothing but shift the responsibility of deciding the ramp orientation from the dwarves to the player

Ah, but I'd STILL want the ramp direction to be determined automatically. All I'm asking is for a single ramp to only lead in one direction N,S,E,W (or two directions for corner ramps). Only when there's a choice (like placing a ramp between two walls- placing between three walls should result in a ramp leading up the middle wall) would the game ask for input.

EDIT: although the option to determine the direction in all cases should still be there.

[Shurhaian]

Someone already raised a very valid point: Making ramps that finicky would add greatly to the difficulty of using them, and its contribution to the game is debatable.

Clarifying how ramps work - fine. Making it a bit more obvious how you can dig ramps from above - fine. (A "Dig downward ramp" designation would be useful, as would the game automatically flagging the matching tile for the flipside in both up and down ramps.) MAYBE having rules for which way a ramp is usable(though some rules still plainly apply), or making more strict rules for ramps that aren't properly supported.

(Digression: Imagine this setup.

Code: [Select]

^^^
^W^
^^^

This, or something close, can be found naturally often enough. Natural ramps will collapse if their supporting structure vanishes. Constructed ones won't - perhaps they should.)

However, making it so ramps are built to only work in one direction, and require manual rebuilding should the local structures change(even if the dwarves intelligently pick the direction), would take away from dwarven autonomy and put excessive micromanagement upon the player.

Clarify and tighten how ramps work, but let the dwarves do the math, and let the dwarves do any required reshaping. If a ramp can't be made in a sensible manner, just don't let a ramp be built there until there IS a sensible solution. And doing so with respect to planned construction would be ideal. (Same goes for other constructions. You can build a 3x6 "bridge" of constructed floors to cross the chasm, but you can't currently plant one section of it, then another which would be supported by the first. This is aggravating if you have to deal with awkward shapes.) A highlight for load-bearing structures could be handy - flash a warning if designated digging/deconstruction is going to cause an obvious collapse, either a cave-in as they are now, or a deconstruction of constructed tiles. This would also apply to ramps that would be left without support, though the only consequence there would be the lack of that path; nothing else would collapse with them(unless you also knock out a wall that's bearing something else).

tl; dr version:

The game UI doesn't need to be any more complicated. Make ramps more intuitive, sure, but let the dwarves do the work of actually orienting them - both initially and with any subsequent constructions.

[Draco18s]

also we really need a monospace font available for doing diagrams.

Use the code tags.

We also have teletype. 

Code: [Select]

[tt]
mono-spaced stuff
[/tt]


[Typoman]

ah awesome. its little details like that you never even think to look up that can make all the difference.

and to those arguing it would make it more difficult. i really doubt the the level of difficulty added will matter at all. it is on par with setting the direction a bridge raises in. and should use the same function. also i got a tl;dr on that post so yeah...

[Untelligent]

Two sub-topics since my last post I'd like to address, without quoting specific people who mentioned them because there were a handful of them:



1) People wanting the ramps to choose their directions automatically. It already does this.

2) People directing attention to the 15 pages or so of newbies being confused by ramps. Almost all of these newbies are confused by the same issue: ramps require a wall next to them to function properly; this can easily be solved by putting a little warning in, say, the "construct ramps" menu. Not the best way of making it more clear, but its a start.


Oh, and a third:

i really doubt the the level of difficulty added will matter at all. it is on par with setting the direction a bridge raises in. and should use the same function. also i got a tl;dr on that post so yeah...

The problem with this is not necessarily that it will make the game more difficult, but increase the amount of keystrokes to accomplish the same thing as we're already doing.

[Derakon]

The vast majority of ramps get dug, not built; thus, a warning on the constructions dialog won't help any. Given the way things are set up, I can't think of a good way to say "Hey, this dug-out ramp is unusable" in an understandable way. You could maybe make it blink with an X symbol or something.

It's not so much that ramps are complicated as that they can cease to work in ways that you can't recognize. Magma smelters will say "I need some magma beneath me to work", and bridges will say "I need to be attached to some solid ground before I can be built", but ramps don't say "I need to have a wall next to me to be usable".

[Shurhaian]

It's not (just) a question of difficulty, but one of nuisance. A large part of the problem with a large fortress is the micromanagement required to keep it running at all smoothly. Introducing MORE micromanagement is not something that should be done casually.

Deciding which way a bridge raises is a significant tactical decision for a significant construction. There's not necessarily "one right way" to make a bridge - compare the difference between a drawbridge and a retracting bridge, for starters. If you have a drawbridge that blocks an entry corridor when raised, do you want to pull it up into the corridor, giving some room for murder holes? (Possibly with a short drawbridge to lock them into that corridor - possibly combined with water pumps.) Or at the corridor's mouth, so the attackers can't get out of sight of your outside crossbow towers? Which way that decision goes dictates a big difference in strategy.

Dwarves should, on the other hand, be smart enough to build ramps in a way that makes sense, and shift material around so that it connects reasonably smoothly as they build new things around those ramps. A ramp is supposed to connect Z-levels. Some indication of which way it works and doesn't - say, shading the "solid" side of the ramp darker / doing something to the "empty space" side of the ramp on the upper level - might be possible to keep it straightforward, but so long as the functionality of ramps themselves is made plainer, I don't see why players need to be involved in every niggling detail. It also would add a new layer of complication to the very feature people are already saying there's trouble learning. Do you honestly think making this change would eliminate the forum posts from people stuck on ramps? I think it more likely that accidentally building ramps the wrong way would cause at least as many problems, maybe more.

Dwarven autonomy is a large part of the game's charm, too. It makes sense to order the general things we want done, but, well, would you be terribly happy if you were told not just to connect this floor to that, but which way the low end of the ramp should face? I don't think even the most inbred dwarven noble is supposed to be THAT stupid.

Re: Untelligent - the reason I(and likely others, though I can't be sure) am arguing for ramps to pick directions intelligently is because others are arguing they shouldn't. Nothing more.

Perhaps a ramp with no proper supporting wall(existing or planned) could light up an error saying "Unsupported" or similar, when you're trying to place it. Whether you can place it anyway or not is a matter for further debate.

Re: digging ramps - being able to designate from both sides - and automatically designating the corresponding tile on the other Z-level - might help make the initial digging clear. More feedback on them could be nice, though, indeed.

[Typoman]

automating the process of direction also makes sense. as long as you can over-ride it while placing. just make sure they don't work in more than 1 direction. whichever was built first will work so in the example i showed above if i built the z -2 south ramp first (on that level the z -1 ramp is already built), the north one simply would not be pathable as it is a ramp leading to the wall that is the back of the z=-1 ramp. this would make sense as we don't have some sort of weird ramp that seems to change shape every time you use it.
if the ramp can't have a high side aginst the wall (say it was a 3 wide ramp in the middle of a 3 wide corridor) it would automatically ramp in the most logical direction. walling off the high end in the corridor.

also if you are doing it right it will only take 1 i repeat 1 extra keystroke per designation. for designations you would hit r to go to the ramp menu then hit w, a, s or d to choose the direction, for constructed ramps it would work like bridges.

so really either soultion works fine. for the automatic one you are only saving 1 keystroke per designation. i really don't see that that makes a difference.

[Mike Mayday]

Untelligent, I think I have grasped the problem here.
You're thinking in current interface terms. Adding more keystrokes IS a problem now because the whole interface is downright appalling. The very fact that people are against adding MORE CONTROL over details (In a game that simulates creatures to the point of separate teeth!!) just confirms this. When it's done right, this kind of thing wouldn't be a problem.

Placing a ramp:
Once you get to the ramp designation, the default state is "intelligent". If you choose to place a ramp now, the shape would be determined based on the surrounding walls. BUT you'd also get the chance to switch to any of the 12 possible ramp shapes and directions.
In "intelligent" mode you could still affect the direction when placing single ramps: hold the LMB to choose a place, then move the mouse in the direction you want the ramp to face, then release the LMB to place it. This means no additional keystrokes.

Also, regarding "UNSUPPORTED" message: no. That is exactly what I am against. I want ramps to be specific, non-abstract constructions. When a tile is occupied by a wall, you know what's there: a rectangular cuboid. What I'm asking for, is the same thing for ramps, so that a ramp is any one of the shapes presented on the picture liked above. I'd like to be able to place those ramps even if they lead nowhere. I'd like wagons to only be able to traverse the "straight" (non-corner) ramps.

[qwertyuiopas]

12?

You get 256  possibilities by imagining the ramp(s) sloping up to a halfway point at each lower part, and then sloping up from there to each upper direction. Even better(for the 3D visualizers), this would be modular.

The only trouble is with impassable directioins, but I never saw any of those.