Print

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

[immibis]

I think channels should be reverted, because this is completely redundant.
Why is it completely redundant?
Because it does exactly the same thing as designating ramps on the next level down.
If I wanted a ramp I would've designated a ramp, so when I designate a channel I expect a channel.

[Quietust]

I think channels should be reverted, because this is completely redundant.
Why is it completely redundant?
Because it does exactly the same thing as designating ramps on the next level down.
If I wanted a ramp I would've designated a ramp, so when I designate a channel I expect a channel.

Technically, a "dig ramp" designation is not capable of removing a floor tile when the stone underneath has already been mined out - additionally, if you try to designate a tile on Z+1 for channeling, a dwarf isn't smart enough to do it from Z+0, while designating a Ramp to be dug on Z+0 will have the same net effect.

[Max White]

If its a new feature that IT MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL on the basis that its exactly the same as going down a level and telling them to dig ramps. They might as well not have channel at all if both things work the same.

I want channeling back.

[GoogleFrog]

I think channels should be reverted, because this is completely redundant.
Why is it completely redundant?
Because it does exactly the same thing as designating ramps on the next level down.
If I wanted a ramp I would've designated a ramp, so when I designate a channel I expect a channel.

Technically, a "dig ramp" designation is not capable of removing a floor tile when the stone underneath has already been mined out - additionally, if you try to designate a tile on Z+1 for channeling, a dwarf isn't smart enough to do it from Z+0, while designating a Ramp to be dug on Z+0 will have the same net effect.

I think it is redundant. If there is no stone underneath old channel and new channel do the same thing.

I lost many miners to the new channel system. I was channelling an aquifer for defence against the underground and my miners occasionally walked down the ramp just as they had channelled it out. They where then taken by the flow and drowned in my reservoir a few levels down.

[njero]

This needs to be reverted if a feature, fixed if a bug. Channelling had a specific, useful purpose before. As some have mentioned, it is now a largely redundant alternate method of digging ramps.

The "you can't dig a perfect pit from above argument" I find ridiculous. Of course you can't, the use of a rope, portable ladder, or helping hand to exit the hole is simply abstracted from the process for the sack of keeping the game fun. People have been digging perfectly good, and rather deep holes since we invented shovels. Considering the demand for Toady to implement rope ladders or some other form of ascent method that is buildable and removable from above, it makes no sense to remove the one method we already had of limited descent free digging.

[immibis]

And of course, if DF was perfectly realistic it'd be no fun at all.
I lost two miners once by channeling an aquifer from above on a cold map. They dug the ramps, immediately fell into the aquifer and then it froze over.

[OneRaven]

I think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.

I don't think messing up the functionality of channeling to adjust its usefulness as a barrier makes any sense. First, the ramp change makes channeling for normal tasks leave a load of ugly ramps that have to be cleaned up, if you even can - tapping a river from above leaves a submerged ramp that will plague your beautiful aquiduct for the rest of time. Secondly, it barely changes the effectiveness of ditches anyway. Just dig a two wide channel, remove the ramps on one side, and you have a perfectly functional ha-ha. Since invaders won't jump down cliffs, it's equally effective in either direction!

[Deathworks]

Hi!

I don't have any problems with the new way this works. You simply have to think a little bit about some of the things you do. And it is not even much (except maybe for the aquifers).

Personally, I have a lot of use for the channelling even as it is now since I do remove excessive pieces of landscape or even some entire hills: Dig out the level below and cut it of, and presto! one overhang less.

In addition, I was always reluctant about moat defenses because they do not give you protection against ranged weapons which were very deadly until now - built walls did a much better job at directing people to your traps.

Wolfius: As Zakastra hinted, removing ramps has been in 3D for a long time. It has been a standard part of my defenses to remove all natural ramps so as to force enemies to path through a few trap-ridden pathways (although you never were and still are not allowed to remove ramps at the border of the map (T_T)

Deathworks

[Wolfius]

Personally, I have a lot of use for the channelling even as it is now since I do remove excessive pieces of landscape or even some entire hills: Dig out the level below and cut it of, and presto! one overhang less.

In addition, I was always reluctant about moat defenses because they do not give you protection against ranged weapons which were very deadly until now - built walls did a much better job at directing people to your traps.

Likewise, I do alot of heavy landscaping, although I've been wary about the collapse method after a minor accident breached a chunk of my fort(oddly, I only ever seem to have small accidents) - the new channeling is handy for mass designating large areas without worrying that you'll overlook a tree or a sapling will grow into a tree while the mining is under way, and hazard my legendary miners with collapse-induced injury.

Still, I'd support restoring the old channeling and keeping the new as 'dig downward ramp' or the ilk.

And while built walls are ideal, they take a while, especially if you want to enclose a large area, or have dangerous critters on your map(tho at times I've brought wood and threw up a temporary palisade - wood walls seem to go up alot faster than stone). The ditch is then subsequently handy for assorted traps, a nice aesthetic moat, or just keeping enemies from hiding from archers atop the wall in that little blind spot.

In my latest fort, while landscaping, I actually left a one-tile wall of dirt/stone a few tiles back from the edge, and used that for most of my perimeter - took a fraction of the time.

Wolfius: As Zakastra hinted, removing ramps has been in 3D for a long time. It has been a standard part of my defenses to remove all natural ramps so as to force enemies to path through a few trap-ridden pathways (although you never were and still are not allowed to remove ramps at the border of the map (T_T)

Deathworks

...I've always resorted to channeling to make cliffs or building over free-standing ramps...

Wolfus Cancels : Post Topic, Tantruming

[Fox the Undead]

I prefer dwarf-powered defense or walls, so channels in my forts have one purpose - aqueducts for water and magma. And magmatic aqueducts look UGLY with ramps, because either you have ramps or melting (=dead) miner. Due to pathfinding bugs you almost guaranteed to have melting dwarves.

Please, remove this "feature" or make it toggleable on and off in init.txt.

[Squirrelloid]

I'm seriously considering trading a dwarf to prevent having an unsightly ramp where i breach the magma sea.  That the game is making me even think about that is stupid.

I was already designating ramps in the last version for mass 'channelling' applications to prevent miner stupidity.  The channel command has other useful features, I want it back!

[Foehamster]

It does, however, make an aesthetic mess when landscaping/breaching existing ponds and rivers.

Otherwise I don't mind it at all.

Personally I've always thought it strange that rivers and ponds have cliff-like straight sides.  How many natural bodies of water have a swimming-pool edge?  I don't see why dwarves shouldn't be able to wade a few feet into a river where they might battle carp without guaranteed drowning.  (oh and being prone/standing in water still needs to be rationalized into something.)

But that's just me.

[Mike Mayday]

I am a strong supporter of removing the game mechanic of "omnidirectional" ramps and replacing them with ramps that each have a specific direction. It just irks me.

[ManaUser]

Whether this is a bug or not, it was much better before.

[njero]

It does, however, make an aesthetic mess when landscaping/breaching existing ponds and rivers.

Otherwise I don't mind it at all.

Personally I've always thought it strange that rivers and ponds have cliff-like straight sides.  How many natural bodies of water have a swimming-pool edge?  I don't see why dwarves shouldn't be able to wade a few feet into a river where they might battle carp without guaranteed drowning.  (oh and being prone/standing in water still needs to be rationalized into something.)

But that's just me.

Fair enough, but that's an issue about pond generation, not channeling.