Print

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

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think the new channels are good. There isn't a reason I can think of that'd make the old channel system better than the current one, that wasn't related to aesthetics or (rather ephemeric in itself) dwarf safety in regards to straying into lava and sieges. Practically, the new channels are better. I find it very useful that I can no longer accidentally get a part of the fort stranded by channelling in the wrong place. I can vote for an "h"/"H" designation, with the capital being the old channelling way, but I'll much rather vote for a "double channel" feature - channelling over solid ground will make downward ramps, channelling over downward ramps will remove them. Speaking of which, the "dig" designation should also be able to remove upward ramps.

[ItchyBeard]

No more having to dig out one edge at a time. No more digging stairs everywhere before channelling.

The only time I ever had to dig out one edge at a time was if I was channeling over an already mined-out area. You still have to do that if you don't want your dwarves surfing floor down to the next level.

That comment was w.r.t. channelling out a large area and getting a dwarf stuck on an 'island'.

[Grocer]

Realism is the worst argument to have about the 'ramping' of channels.

I disagree.  The worst argument in favor of the replacement of channeling with ramps is that it's easier, despite the fact that you could already dig with ramps in the same exact way^* in the previous version.  At best, it boils down to 'this way is better because the game has poor documentation'. 

I have little sympathy for people whose dwarves get stuck - this is avoidable, usually easily, and it is typically trivial to rescue them (by, for instance, having them dig a ramp beneath their feet).  Digging large pits - ramping has been the best way to do this since the game went 3D AFAIK.  'Ninja' trees falling on your dwarves' heads.  What did you think was going to happen when you undermined that tree?  Measure twice, cut once.  Needing to think about what you're doing and pay attention are features, not bugs.

But those in favor of the change are likely to prevail.  We should probably have just a single 'dig' command that knows what you're thinking and does that.  People could queue up a couple thousand digs in the job manager and let the game just dig out the fortress for them.  It'll free up some time for playing Progress Quest. 

^*Yes, channeling works as previously if all there is to remove is a floor tile or you're channeling next to a stair.  Which indicates to me at least that Toady is on the side of 'The Realists'.  Which means that from now on I'll refer to my side as 'The Pits'. 

EDIT:  In the spirit of bi-partisanship I've already devised a slogan for the opposition.  "Ramps.  Nature's deodorant."

[njero]

I have little sympathy for people whose dwarves get stuck - this is avoidable, usually easily, and it is typically trivial to rescue them (by, for instance, having them dig a ramp beneath their feet).  Digging large pits - ramping has been the best way to do this since the game went 3D AFAIK.  'Ninja' trees falling on your dwarves' heads.  What did you think was going to happen when you undermined that tree?  Measure twice, cut once.  Needing to think about what you're doing and pay attention are features, not bugs.

This. If your miners are getting stuck, they're either clearing ceilings and would have been stuck anyway (and are lucky to be alive), or they're standing on a lone wall they can quickly deal with. Far less frustrating than having to free a mason who's walled himself in.

But because we now have a digging designation that "takes less thought," digging what used to be simple two-sided channel moats has become a frustration. Best case scenario you get away with a single sided moat, and just have to go in and remove ramps from the restricted side. If you want a two sided moat, you either have to ad an access shaft (which itself must be protected from building destroyers... [yay, recursive moating]), or extend the sides of your moat and construct over the exit ramps you leave on the end (which only works for non-continuous channels). Sounds like an awful lot of work to keep in a goblin? Try pitting something that can break down doors.

I should add a little perspective for my frustration, I'm one of the people what was (and continues to be) annoyed to no end that you couldn't dig a multilevel room without access from below. I detest having to leave stairwells, doors, floodgates, or some other access to an underworks behind if I have no actual use for them. I was thrilled when Toady first mentioned incorporating ascent methods that could be built and removed from above. This whole channelling thing is a step in the exact opposite direction, as it makes removing the traces of construction more, not less difficult.

[gtmattz]

I want the old channels back, the main reason I used them was for digging moats and now that we have to go down and remove the ramps it makes that useless.  The way I perceive the new way, it is almost exactly the same as digging ramps on the level below, so now we have 2 ways to dig ramps and no way to make inaccessible holes.  BOO 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I think removing the ability to easily make inaccessible holes was the whole point. And I like the two ways of making ramps.

Also, shouldn't the main deterrent in a moat be impassable water rather than just the steep walls? You expect to have an easily constructed defence at little expense (rhyme not intended), which is wrong for any gameplay reason I can think of. It's like the Dragon Teeth in Total Annihilation - very useful, because they're very broken. The AI doesn't know how to bypass a row of unattackable buildings, so it cannot ever attack a base surrounded by them, except with flying units. Ramped channels are good for balance purposes, and I hope they remain that way, for the good of the game. You can still do other things to stop sieges and stuff, like locking doors, but this is one of the lower-hanging fruit Toady could pick, and I completely agree with him on that decision.

[Grocer]

You expect to have an easily constructed defence at little expense (rhyme not intended), which is wrong for any gameplay reason I can think of.

I hate to break this to you, I know that you were enjoying distancing yourself from your previous 'I like the new channeling because sometimes I don't pay attention to what I'm doing' argument but it is trivial to knock out a ditch that restricts access to whatever you like as currently implemented.  You can even fill it with water (though I recommend that you fill it via pumps as channeling into a flow can be dangerous now).  It's pretty clear that this change wasn't about removing an easy early defensive strategy.

It is annoying from an aesthetic stand point though.  Some people don't care about aesthetics.  They are in luck!  It isn't necessary to care about what things look like.  Some do (myself included), and I find it annoying that a useful terrain shaping option had been removed.  By itself that would be a minor quibble.

Some people don't care about dwarven safety, though my guess from what you've written is that you find it a pointless exercise fraught with lots of random difficulty as opposed to not actually caring.  Happily, no one is forced to care about what happens to their dwarves and many amusing stories will doubtless come to pass as a result.  We will all have a good chuckle.  Some of us however, prefer to carry out dwarvenly activities with as little loss of dwarven resources as possible (boring though this might be to the outside observer).  Removing the one straight forward way to breach hazardous flows without sacrificing a dwarf negatively impacts this pursuit.*  Glacier forts (already a (more) difficult (than usual) business) now have the extra requirement of sacrificial miners (and picks).  Keeping your dwarves from being swept off to carpy death is a much bigger pain in the ass that relies as much on luck as anything else.  Laying down a magma project means volunteering a dwarf for the melty-melty (I am probably stupidly assuming that the pipes will not have smooth walls forever).  At least with other pathfinding issues like a mason walling himself up it's pretty trivial to avoid if you pay attention to what you are doing - relatively dwarf-proof workarounds exist (though it is stupid).  Keeping your dwarves from wandering onto the ramp means advancing the action frame-by-frame until the ramp appears then making it a restricted traffic zone and hoping for the best.  Hoping for the best is not a reasonable strategy and it certainly isn't dwarf-proof.  Going frame-by-frame for every ramp that might be dangerous is not a enjoyable process.  This is not a minor quibble and as has been noted isn't a particularly realistic change either, at least until a climbing method is introduced and mechanics gets it's overhaul. 

But I understand that you want to be able to designate ramps from above so that you don't undermine any trees by accident.  Doing it the other way is clearly an inconvience for you.  If it makes you happy, I would support an announcement that warns you when a dwarf is about to carve out a ramp underneath a tree, that seems like a good idea, a dwarf would probably notice the roots and be all "what is this strange thing?  Better go tell the chief!"  I'm not sure there's a lot that can be done to prevent accidental holes in your fort, a dwarf would probably just chalk that up to poor management.  That's what I've always felt when it happened to me.


*I'm looking forward to using 'controlled' cave-ins to achieve this now.  Anybody know what impact the new material data has on cave-ins?  Do denser materials have more 'punch'?

[njero]

You expect to have an easily constructed defence at little expense (rhyme not intended), which is wrong for any gameplay reason I can think of.

I hate to break this to you, I know that you were enjoying distancing yourself from your previous 'I like the new channeling because sometimes I don't pay attention to what I'm doing' argument but it is trivial to knock out a ditch that restricts access to whatever you like as currently implemented.  You can even fill it with water (though I recommend that you fill it via pumps as channeling into a flow can be dangerous now).  It's pretty clear that this change wasn't about removing an easy early defensive strategy.

To elaborate, channels as an easy early game defence were only made more difficult by this change on an order of digging an extra row, and then removing the outside ramps. Creatures still can't hop down, which is the essential element of your complaint. The poor "gameplay" element pointed out by Mirrsen is every bit as extant as it was before the change.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

As I said before, I am in favor of the new method, and seeing all the drama, I got the feeling that it is actually a good thing - good policy changes usually cause a lot of noise from the old elite :) :) :) :)

But seriously, I think it is rather pointless to have this discussion hog up the bug forums.

I propose, if you care so much about the channelling (to be honest, I don't mind too much, I can live quite happily with the old system as well), make a discussion thread in the Suggestion Forum.

And given that there seem to be people who dislike the new channelling, people who like the new channelling, and people who actually don't really care, I would recommend to have a poll attached to that discussion so you can really see whether there are really so many people who consider it a problem.

Deathworks

[Grumman]

As I said before, I am in favor of the new method, and seeing all the drama, I got the feeling that it is actually a good thing - good policy changes usually cause a lot of noise from the old elite

...

Has it occurred to you that bad policy changes would also cause complaints?

And given that there seem to be people who dislike the new channelling, people who like the new channelling, and people who actually don't really care, I would recommend to have a poll attached to that discussion so you can really see whether there are really so many people who consider it a problem.

The only new functionality the new method provides is allowing you to avoid undercutting trees. Everything else is just a function of people using the wrong tool for the job. In exchange, we lost the capacity to create aesthetically pleasing and safe waterworks, and turned unusual pathfinding into a significant bug.

[G-Flex]

The new channeling system was not just implemented in order to provide new functionality. That is all.

[Sean Mirrsen]

It also allows making wagon-pathable underground entrances without flipping through Z-levels. And generally makes a little more sense. The new method's primary advantages are accessibility and ease of use for anyone not familiar with dwarven shenanigans. The old method's advantages are cleaner looks and better long-term safety of the dwarves. I'm not saying the latter two are not important, but you have to agree that as far as the game goes, they are still less important than being able to strip-mine a surface layer without worrying about random dwarves getting stuck in the pit (or on the other side of wherever you're digging) until you remember to make a ramp or a stair. I restate my earlier suggestion: Make the Channel designation a double-task designation. Channeling a flat surface will make a sloped canal, channelling a downward slope will remove the slope. If possible, do the same with the Dig designation, adding the "remove slope" functionality to it, and removing the dedicated designation. If you value aesthetics and/or safety, designating a second channel job to remove ramps won't be too much work.

And for the record, a proper channel looks like this.

[G-Flex]

Make the Channel designation a double-task designation. Channeling a flat surface will make a sloped canal, channelling a downward slope will remove the slope. If possible, do the same with the Dig designation, adding the "remove slope" functionality to it, and removing the dedicated designation. If you value aesthetics and/or safety, designating a second channel job to remove ramps won't be too much work.

This would defeat the purpose of the change. I'll just find the IRC log, so people actually know why Toady did this instead of bickering constantly.


Okay, here we go:

[01/04/10 06:46:47] <ToadyOne> we added ramps because it was too easy to block off invaders and so on, wanted to make it more of a project
[01/04/10 06:47:42] <ToadyOne> I mean, the improved sieges stuff is the true fix
[01/04/10 06:47:56] <ToadyOne> it was just something we noticed when testing started, and it was an okay change

[Shades]

The new channeling system was not just implemented in order to provide new functionality. That is all.

It's good it wasn't done for that reason. Because it hasn't provided any

[Sean Mirrsen]

Is it about the preventing of the use of channels as an easy defence mechanism? Ah, so it is. We already mentioned that, and seemed to reach the consensus that it's not the most important result of the change, as it can both be circumvented and omitted entirely, relying on other impenetrable defences to keep enemies out.