Print

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

[Draco18s]

ramps already disappear when sitting in the middle of nowhere. Ramp a 3x3 and the middle square will not have a ramp.

It is currently order-dependent.  Ramp the center square last, and it will not be cleared.

That is a bug and has been around for a while.

[TKTom]

What's next, building walls considered "exploit prone", so we'll have to first dig a trench, build a foundation in it, build a floor on that, then build the wall?

Yes. Do want. I'd love to see things at the point where a hastily built wall, on loose soil or loam/sand/etc, can be dug under by sappers. If you take the time to trench and rock fill, sappers will become less effective.

 I try to build my constructions like this anyway, with deep foundations down to the bedrock. I use wood for scaffolding too.

 Though I do think that the whole "channels changed because they were exploitable" argument is squiffy.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I like the new channels because they're more accessible and easier to use than the previous version's. Quoting myself from earlier, the new channels offer accessibility and ease of use, while old channels offered aesthetic cleanness, better long-term dwarf safety, and an easy siege defence. The primary reason for fixing the channels was the siege defence one, and the other benefits of the old channels are, while undoubtedly important to the game, are less important than being able to reliably channel stuff out without worrying about stranding areas of your fort or getting your dwarves stuck. Maybe the experienced DF players know the game's little quirks in regards to wall placement and channelling and how it can trap dwarves, but newer players don't need that exersize in frustration.

Also, it's already been called a preliminary fix. Once proper siege improvements start appearing, channels may get reverted.

However, I still vote for a double-whammy designation system. Channelling level terrain should create ramped pits, channelling downward ramps should remove them. In the same vein, digging should remove upward ramps, and the "remove ramps" designation should be removed itself.

[Squirrelloid]

I like the new channels because they're more accessible and easier to use than the previous version's. Quoting myself from earlier, the new channels offer accessibility and ease of use, while old channels offered aesthetic cleanness, better long-term dwarf safety, and an easy siege defence. The primary reason for fixing the channels was the siege defence one, and the other benefits of the old channels are, while undoubtedly important to the game, are less important than being able to reliably channel stuff out without worrying about stranding areas of your fort or getting your dwarves stuck. Maybe the experienced DF players know the game's little quirks in regards to wall placement and channelling and how it can trap dwarves, but newer players don't need that exersize in frustration.

Also, it's already been called a preliminary fix. Once proper siege improvements start appearing, channels may get reverted.

However, I still vote for a double-whammy designation system. Channelling level terrain should create ramped pits, channelling downward ramps should remove them. In the same vein, digging should remove upward ramps, and the "remove ramps" designation should be removed itself.

How is it a fix?  Remove ramps exists.  More micromanagement does not solve the problem.

The only thing the change did is make breaching liquids uglier.  Claiming this somehow fxies the easy defense aspect is the worst sort of sophistry.  (And prettiness matters - i make my forts to look good).

[TKTom]

Also, it's already been called a preliminary fix. Once proper siege improvements start appearing, channels may get reverted.

However, I still vote for a double-whammy designation system. Channelling level terrain should create ramped pits, channelling downward ramps should remove them. In the same vein, digging should remove upward ramps, and the "remove ramps" designation should be removed itself.

How is it a fix?  Remove ramps exists.  More micromanagement does not solve the problem.

 Ability to remove from above would mean that areas could be cleaned up.

 Coupled with the extended time taken to dig a trench maintains that it can't be "exploited".

[Squirrelloid]

Also, it's already been called a preliminary fix. Once proper siege improvements start appearing, channels may get reverted.

However, I still vote for a double-whammy designation system. Channelling level terrain should create ramped pits, channelling downward ramps should remove them. In the same vein, digging should remove upward ramps, and the "remove ramps" designation should be removed itself.

How is it a fix?  Remove ramps exists.  More micromanagement does not solve the problem.

 Ability to remove from above would mean that areas could be cleaned up.

 Coupled with the extended time taken to dig a trench maintains that it can't be "exploited".

i'm sorry, but what?

Any large trench couldn't be channeled while hostiles were headed toward you anyway.  Certainly double designation barely increases the time, since miners who dig fast enough to do so in the face of the enemy are mostly slowed down by time spent moving to the dig site.

If the enemy isn't literally right there, you have all the time in the world to make a trench - so how long it takes is not an issue.

[TKTom]

 Ability to remove from above would mean that areas could be cleaned up.

 Coupled with the extended time taken to dig a trench maintains that it can't be "exploited".

i'm sorry, but what?

Any large trench couldn't be channeled while hostiles were headed toward you anyway.  Certainly double designation barely increases the time, since miners who dig fast enough to do so in the face of the enemy are mostly slowed down by time spent moving to the dig site.

If the enemy isn't literally right there, you have all the time in the world to make a trench - so how long it takes is not an issue.

 I know it wasn't very clear but I do agree with you here.

 Supposedly the change was made so that channels couldn't be dug while the enemy is approaching. Logically, if channels creating ramps stops this "exploit" then Sean's system also does the same while maintaining functionality for those of us who want to remove the ramps.

[Squirrelloid]

 Ability to remove from above would mean that areas could be cleaned up.

 Coupled with the extended time taken to dig a trench maintains that it can't be "exploited".

i'm sorry, but what?

Any large trench couldn't be channeled while hostiles were headed toward you anyway.  Certainly double designation barely increases the time, since miners who dig fast enough to do so in the face of the enemy are mostly slowed down by time spent moving to the dig site.

If the enemy isn't literally right there, you have all the time in the world to make a trench - so how long it takes is not an issue.

 I know it wasn't very clear but I do agree with you here.

 Supposedly the change was made so that channels couldn't be dug while the enemy is approaching. Logically, if channels creating ramps stops this "exploit" then Sean's system also does the same while maintaining functionality for those of us who want to remove the ramps.

Except the change doesn't stop the exploit - anyone using channelling for defense can just remove the ramps and build a floor over a ramp set just inside the moat.

Hence my claim that saying it fixes the exploit is the worst sort of sophistry, because it does nothing of the sort.

[TKTom]

Except the change doesn't stop the exploit - anyone using channelling for defense can just remove the ramps and build a floor over a ramp set just inside the moat.

Hence my claim that saying it fixes the exploit is the worst sort of sophistry, because it does nothing of the sort.

 It wasn't ever my claim, it's simply what I've heard as the "official explanation".

 From what I've seen the change simply takes away one ability and adds nothing (to those who know some of the less intuitive nuances of the old system) but Sean explains his reasons for the double designate idea and they do make sense to me.

[Sean Mirrsen]

No, it doesn't fix the exploit, it just makes it a little harder. Kinda like Blizzard upped the requirements on the Zergling to tone down the most blatant rush tactic. It didn't stop it, oh no, but it reduced it just enough that other variations began seeing use.

In 40d, you didn't need much thinking to make an impassable defence. Empty single-tile moat, +drawbridge. 100% land creature-proof. The problem was that it was painstakingly easy. With an additional complexity layer on top of that, it'll at least make you work to get that defence. And if the double-designation is added, it won't take much effort at all to satisfy your security or aesthetic needs.

But I say again, I don't think the "defense ability" fix is the most important result of this change, even if it was, seemingly, intended as such. The new channels are a lot more sensible and player-friendly, and that's how it should be. I don't think DF was ever a game where aesthetics (or safety, for that matter) ever went ahead of gameplay and Fun.

[TKTom]

In 40d, you didn't need much thinking to make an impassable defence. Empty single-tile moat, +drawbridge. 100% land creature-proof. The problem was that it was painstakingly easy. With an additional complexity layer on top of that, it'll at least make you work to get that defence.

 Two tile moat. : )


#####
+0^++               -> to Fortress
#####

0 is meant to be a pit, ^ is a ramp. Bridge goes over that section, raises to the right.

 I totally agree with the rest of the post, however. I just felt that it needed to be explicitly stated how the new system currently fails abjectly with regards to it's prime directive.

[Tarran]

In 40d, you didn't need much thinking to make an impassable defence. Empty single-tile moat, +drawbridge. 100% land creature-proof. The problem was that it was painstakingly easy. With an additional complexity layer on top of that, it'll at least make you work to get that defence.

 Two tile moat. : )


#####
+0^++               -> to Fortress
#####

0 is meant to be a pit, ^ is a ramp. Bridge goes over that section, raises to the right.

 I totally agree with the rest of the post, however. I just felt that it needed to be explicitly stated how the new system currently fails abjectly with regards to it's prime directive.

The ramp can be on the other side you know.

#####
+^0++               -> to Fortress
#####

[Squirrelloid]

But I say again, I don't think the "defense ability" fix is the most important result of this change, even if it was, seemingly, intended as such. The new channels are a lot more sensible and player-friendly, and that's how it should be. I don't think DF was ever a game where aesthetics (or safety, for that matter) ever went ahead of gameplay and Fun.

More sensible because the channel command doesn't create channels?

I hate to beat a dead horse, but you do realize that the ramp designation *already did this*.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Have you actually seen a raw channel? One that hasn't been engineered into a proper canal with smooth walls?

Spoiler: Hint (click to show/hide)

Digging out vertical-wall pits is usually more work than a sloped hole in the ground. To represent that, the double-designation is the best way.

And if I ever hear about the "make ramp" designation again... for flails' sake people, if anyone proposes that "to safely dig out a patch of land, you need to go to the lower z-level and designate upward ramps; and beware of falling trees" be the game's official modus operandi on the matter, you may as well make a new page on TVTropes, titled "Crowning Moment Of GuideDangIt", and put your name up as the trope maker. It does not make sense when there's a channel designation that should do that. Ramped channels are functionally the same as the non-ramped ones, they simply look different and allow moving through them. You don't get a different liquid throughput because of ramps. Aesthetics and dwarf safety are not a good enough reason to reduce the game's accessibility to common players, and slightly offsetting the channel's status as an easy impassable defence is a good enough excuse to make the feature stick.

[DoctorZuber]

signed