Print

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

The new channeling is covered in awesome sauce, the old channeling smelled real bad.

113 (19.3%)

The old channeling was the best, we don't need two ways to make ramps it is just silly.

245 (41.8%)

Old channeling was the best, new channeling is also the best.  Can't we all just get along?

132 (22.5%)

You people need to get on with your lives, it's not a big deal either way.

96 (16.4%)

Total Members Voted: 583

[Grocer]

Would you please explain to me how exactly they do that, then? Especially in the case with walls adjacent to water or magma. Thanks.

What other have said about using mattocks etc., but also three other things.

One, it's an abstraction for the absence of climbing in the game.  It's not great, because everybody should be able to climb, but it's still reasonable.

Two, it's an abstraction for not having a method to safely breach a flow.  I hope hope hope that when mechanics gets an overhaul that'll make it in (there are numerous ways to manage it if you give it a little thought.  A powered screw pump that puts the screw into a weakened wall, for instance).

Once those two are in I fully support dumping the old channeling completely.

Third, channels are represented in game as a square hole in the ground.  But the game is an abstraction, the actual area of a tile is indeterminate, the actual shape of the landscape is indeterminate.  A channel is only a square-walled hole in your mind, it needn't be viewed as such for it's function to remain a valid supposition.  A channel with 70 degree walls is gonna be a real hassle to invaders with no way to bridge it.  If you're focusing exclusively on the feasibility of achieving the in-game representation you're missing the point of ASCII graphics.  The world exists in your head, not in it's representation.  Channeling has to be able to be deep pits in the ground that stop invaders and shallow irrigation channels at the same time.  The trick is finding the balance.  Like it taking forever to dig them from above, for instance.

edited for clarification

[Grumman]

Ever thought of making the channels OSHA compliant? As in, removing ramps before any dangerous flows are in there? [/sarcastic mock]

Ever noticed that this is impossible? The whole problem is that creating the ramps causes the dangerous flows. Unless you're working with an artificial reservoir with a floodgate already installed, you cannot breach the wall without creating unwanted ramps, and you can't remove the ramps because they don't exist until you breach the wall.

[LegoLord]

Now, how do you get into a position where you dig a channel and a dwarf immediately moves to enter it?  Doesn't seem like it should be that hard to avoid.

[Tarran]

Now, how do you get into a position where you dig a channel and a dwarf immediately moves to enter it?  Doesn't seem like it should be that hard to avoid.

QFT.

[LegoLord]

Now, how do you get into a position where you dig a channel and a dwarf immediately moves to enter it?  Doesn't seem like it should be that hard to avoid.

QFT.

I'm serious.  Just build a wall or something to block off any path that might make them try to take once the channel's been dug.

[Squirrelloid]

Now, how do you get into a position where you dig a channel and a dwarf immediately moves to enter it?  Doesn't seem like it should be that hard to avoid.

QFT.

I'm serious.  Just build a wall or something to block off any path that might make them try to take once the channel's been dug.

You do realize this leads to more ridiculous shenannigans then anything caused by the old version's digging interface.  Before you just had to be a little careful in designating to avoid ninja trees.  Now you think a little increase in convenience on that front justifies ridiculous extraneous constructions simply to breach a liquid?  Or that making it easier to avoid death to ninja trees (which was perfectly avoidable with some care) justifies forcing death to avoid unsightly ramps at the point of liquid breach?  Are you for real?

[LegoLord]

Dude, three to five tiles of wall/otherwise inaccessible tiles around the channeled tile should be enough.  If it's just there for transporting liquids, that should be the only tile liquid flows through that has an open space above it.  I can hardly call that extraneous with a straight face.

[G-Flex]

I don't get all this talk about it being more dangerous to breach liquids now. The new channeling system still results in a tile liquid can flow through, just like before. The only difference is that now your dwarves can path down the ramp, which they won't do if it's got magma in it anyway.

[Ilmoran]

I don't get all this talk about it being more dangerous to breach liquids now. The new channeling system still results in a tile liquid can flow through, just like before. The only difference is that now your dwarves can path down the ramp, which they won't do if it's got magma in it anyway.

Because they don't want the ramp left behind, which means they have to have a dwarf on the same level as the flow.

[immibis]

I don't get all this talk about it being more dangerous to breach liquids now. The new channeling system still results in a tile liquid can flow through, just like before. The only difference is that now your dwarves can path down the ramp, which they won't do if it's got magma in it anyway.

1. Dwarf makes a ramp
2. Dwarf goes into channel to remove the ramp
3. Magma fills channel, or water fills channel and freezes over
4. Dwarf burns to death or getss encased in ice.

[LegoLord]

So . . . why does the ramp need to be removed?  Like I said, you only need the channel designation for the final breach, not the whole of the tunnel that the liquid is being transported through.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Couple people have mentioned this.  I thought it was obvious but apparently I was wrong.  Choice one is for the new system.  Choice two is for the old system.  Choice three is for both.  Choice four is, well, I hope that one is obvious at least.

Well, I am one of those your wording has left confused (^_^;;
Because of that, I have changed my vote from 3 to 4.
EDIT: Reading your clarification in the first post, I realized now that the correct vote for me is 1 and I have changed my vote accordingly. Yes, I know, I should have read all your clarifications before changing my vote - my bad.

As I said before, I considered 3 and 4 identical but 3 being friendlier while 4 has a lot of hostility to it. And I personally don't want to see people at each other's throats. (That's what goblins and trolls are for :) :) :) )

However, given my general indifference towards the channelling issue, my stance towards Toady One determines my selection:

1. This is Toady One's baby, and I would not unnecessarily interfere with his decisions. If he wants to make channelling work this way and I don't see it as problematic, then there is no reason for me to tell him how to design his game.
2. Toady One has been doing a wonderful job in creating this complex game and is constantly improving and extending it while removing all the real bugs. Because of that, I would not want to burden him with (in my opinion) unnecessary extra work - which re-institution and re-integration of the old system would mean.

This is why I prefer option 4 over option 3 - but I do not wish to attack those who care.

EDIT: These are the reasons why I picked 1. As I said, I personally do not really favor either system and do not care that much about it. But I don't want to attack those who care.

Pickled Tink: Thank you for giving your perspective on this.

Since you mention that you even mod to support your megaprojects, I want to ask you if there is not some way the thing could be solved via modding.

Also, I was wondering what you think about breach via cave-in (using wood, if possible, when dealing with magma).

Of course, anyone else is welcome to respond as well.

General: Ah, and since people mention that the dwarf at the lower level is due to pathing and not the digging itself (I always assumed the latter to be the case): If you are really paranoid about your dwarves getting themselves drowned then place floor grates over all open spaces surrounding the ramp-to-be. That should prevent pathing down there (I found this out accidentally while making an attempt at a small sewer pit for blood) making the digging safe. And grates will be safely recovered when you "destroy" the building - the dwarves will place them on an adjacent safe tile and not drop them into an abyss or anything.

Deathworks

[Ilmoran]

So . . . why does the ramp need to be removed?  Like I said, you only need the channel designation for the final breach, not the whole of the tunnel that the liquid is being transported through.

Aesthetics.

[LegoLord]

So let me get this straight:

People are mad because their dwarves died trying to remove a ramp that water was flowing through - which they didn't have to designate to begin with - thus raising the cost of making one unnecessary, aesthetically-negligable alteration to a single tile to that of one dwarven life and one pick, both of which are easily replaceable if necessary?

Whereas on the other hand, other people are happy that they can mass designate channels easily from the level above, where you can actually see stuff, and have had no problems with dwarves dieing to ramp removal?

And this makes sense how?

[Riloki]

A (not very) small description of why the new system can be (and often is) dangerous.
V: Ramp
#: Wall
~: Magma
.: Floor
D: Dorf
_: Open space

Code: [Select]

########
#~~~D..#
#~~~V___
#~~~....
########

This is a portrayal of the turn immediately after completing the new channel (the open space having been dug way earlier and cleared to prevent accidental meltings, fps issues from blinking tiles, and headache-inducing issues from same)

Now I'm aware that likely no one would actually make a setup like this, but I just wanted an obvious example of 'dwarf moves to other side to dig, placing him on the opposite side pathing will take him if it can find a route'. This can usually be avoided by  being familiar with what side a dwarf prefers to build on. Easy for those that have played for a long time, but for newer players, or people who haven't played in awhile, or heck, just for people not thinking about it, this requires either trial and error, or mining the wiki.

In this particular case, at a good fps and moderately high gps (if I'm remembering that seting right), the dwarf in question will immediately path back down the ramp regardless of the impending doom, especially if they're particularly agile and the liquid hasn't even started flowing yet. In this case MAGMA. Dwarf then gets his feet roasted, catches on fire, and most likely dies in the heat, with a decent chance of losing the pick, and whatever else said dwarf happened to be carrying.

Even better, let's say the dwarf is on fire, and another dwarf is nearby, and there's a hospital bed open. Urist McHelperDorf hauls the still-flaming miner, catching on fire himself, and merrily begins setting your fortress on fire. Let's say for FUN(tm)'s sake, you haven't forbid your dead, or their items in the o menu! Urist McGraveRobber decides that those hot pants are really styling! Why, they seem to be on fire! He then dons pants, and goes to the booze stockpile for a drink. So with the tantrum spiral and fire spreading like ebola's bastard child with AIDS, the tiny flashing red triangle is insult to injury.

Now, this might seem somewhat melodramatic or exaggerated but so help me Armok, there will be like ten posts on the facepalm thread for this exact reason.

And, before someone says 'but you can avoid that with careful painstaking micromanagement!' allow me to list the ways this can be prevented to my knowledge.

1) Carefully monitoring the breach, pausing when the miner arrives, . your way to the completion of the ramp, then designate and forbid the traffic for the new tile. Provided the pathing cost is now above what going around would be, Urist McMiner will (hopefully) ignore it, and a helpful mason can patch it with a floor, or an out of place pillar with a foundation of liquid rock.

2) Dig the breach area in such a way that a dwarf would have no reason to path over the ramps created, though depending on the situation a magma man might delight in running up the convenient ramp and mauling your miner anyway. This requires more careful planning and in some cases, less attractive breach zones. Which still have a lovely blinking triangle combining with every other moving flashy shiny thing to slowly chip away at your fps and processor.

3) Use either a dwarf powered pump (with grate, preferably, to prevent carp-based doom), or a powered pump. This causes its own problems, such as overflow, splash, and other such fun things that are an even bigger problem with magma, and woe be unto you if you can't safely floor and grate the area, lest beasties drag your dwarves into the water. Please note that the pump would require the creation of a power farm should you desire a multi-tile wide breach (for carrying magma long distances), and even otherwise, require the additional steps of constructing the apparatus for the pumps in question, the machinery involved, and the safety measures, on top of the careful planning. Still, with that lovely blinking triangle taunting you, with it's "Blah blah blah, look at how I can make your dwarvenly lives hell! The triangle reigns supreme!" Mocking you!