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

[Pilsu]

You cannot reasonably argue that the suggestion forum has some kind of inherent, meaningful selection bias in this matter.

[ItchyBeard]

You cannot reasonably argue that the suggestion forum has some kind of inherent, meaningful selection bias in this matter.

I disagree. I think you can fairly argue that the link from the bugs forum thread introduces bias into the polled audience. The majority of the people actually playing the game and not worrying about this stuff are not going to be reading the bugs forum thread, and hence won't ever end up here. The suggestions forum itself might have a less biased audience, but this poll certainly does not.

The poll options also leave something to be desired. Consider that the only option in favour of the new system is also the only option which uses negative language to disparage the previous system. There are multiple options in favour of the old system to various degrees, but only one for the new system.

I like the new system. I recognise it has a few kinks which need to be worked out. I believe it is a step in the right direction in terms of making the game more intuitive, and that it is far more newbie friendly. I also trust Toady knows what he's doing. This poll cannot express my opinions properly.

I'm finding this whole issue rather funny actually.

[Ilmoran]

I agree that the poll options are poorly created.

My vote is this:  Neither the current result of channeling nor the old result of channeling were perfect.

Old Channeling
Pros:  Clean channels (no leftover ramps)
Cons:  Line by line designation to avoid cave ins

New Channeling
Pros:  Mass designation without cave-ins or trapping dwarves
Cons:  No way to remove leftover ramps without getting into the pit.

Proposed solution:
Keep the current result of channeling, but allow ramps to be removed from the top as well as the bottom.  This would allow mass designation without cave-ins, and clean channels with no unsightly ramps.

For the "you can't dig a smooth walled channel without getting inside) arguments:
Dig channel leaving a slight ramp to get out (you wouldn't need much to get yourself out), while making the pit (slightly) deeper than you intend it to be in the end.  Get out of pit, then collapse the ramp into the bottom of the pit.

Similarly, for the "you can't dig out a full, smooth channel into a water source without being exposed to the water as it comes rushing in" argument:  Similar to above, dig out the majority of the channel first, leaving a thin wall between you and the water.  Depending on the volume of water, you may need to brace the wall (but a brace can be reasonably removed afterward).  When ready, get out of the pit and collapse the wall.  The flow should reasonably distribute the contents of the wall through the bed of the channel to a degree where they are negligible.

[bmaczero]

IIRC Toady made this change not as an attempt to "improve" channelling, but to make channelling much harder to use as a quickly creatable superdefense.

[Squirrelloid]

IIRC Toady made this change not as an attempt to "improve" channelling, but to make channelling much harder to use as a quickly creatable superdefense.

And it does nothing of the sort.  Still can be used to create a super defense.  Never was something you could do while the enemy was on top of you.

[Name Lips]

Superdefenses are still easy to set up. A simple construction, like a wall, works wonders. Or a door/bridge attached to a lever. Or the extra 30 seconds it takes to designate all those ramps for destruction.

I don't find this change fun. I don't even find it Fun. I don't feel like the game is more "balanced" with it in place.

Kind of like being able to only make beds out of wood. It's not "balanced," it just makes something arbitrarily difficult.

So many things in DF are hideously unbalanced. That's the sort of game it is. You can set up a hallway full of traps and just treat goblin invaders like a renewable source of iron. Does that mean traps will somehow be made unnecessarily inconvenient to use at some random point in the future? Most regular monsters are completely thwarted by simple constructions. I can seal off my entrance with a wall and be perfectly secure. Does that mean the fix is to make constructions more inconvenient to build?

Toady was correct when he said the problem here is dumb siegers. They shouldn't be thwarted by a 1-tile-wide channel. They should be able to fill in channels, build bridges, tunnel directly into your fort (gasp!), knock down doors/drawbridges with battering rams, level your towers with siege engines, and all sorts of nasty stuff. That's all upcoming, from what I understand.

In the meantime, I suggest not making random changes with the justification of "balance." It would take thousands of arbitrary changes to make DF even slightly balanced. Ad-hoc changes like this just confuse people.

[Pickled Tink]

IIRC Toady made this change not as an attempt to "improve" channelling, but to make channelling much harder to use as a quickly creatable superdefense.

Given that you have over a year before the first attack you have plenty of time to dig out some channels, smooth out the edges, or even, as I did once in 40d, build a moderately large multi-story wooden fort with external palisade, outbuildings, and a drawbridge over a pond on the surface (I accidentally forgot to bring a pick  )...

The almost imperceptible change in time it takes to create a "superdefense" considering the enormous amount of time in which you have to build it renders such an excuse meaningless. On top of this is the very real problem of lost miners and equipment due to liquid breaching and lost functionality and you have a change that has had a net detrimental effect.

Personally, I decided to learn how to be careful in order to avoid so called "ninja trees" (I've never had one fall on me), trapped miners, and other things. I also took the time to understand the z axis so designating ramps from a floor down does not bother me, especially since you can start the designation from the floor above to get the shapes you want, or at the very least create the basic guide around which you build your non rectangular shaped hole (My dwarves like circular rooms these days).

As for aesthetics. Once you master not having "fun", you turn to building vast megaprojects that are entirely aesthetic in value. I have a few plans down that route myself for the new version (Yay, sold a cow for magic beans!).

It just seems absurd to expect that a game this ludicrously complicated and as delightfully murderous as dwarf fortress should coddle you when you could just be careful.

For now, I mourn for the lost functionality and lament the current silly redundant channel/ramp designations that do the same thing.

[therahedwig]

You know, I'm personally indifferent to which version was the best.

But playing around with the new version and making an indoor well, I realised something. It could use improvements.

For an example, you could say 'if you designate plain ground with channelling, you get ramps, if you designate those ramps, you'll get a plain channel(With dwarfs trying to dig while standing on a tile next to the designated area)'. This way you get the benefits of channelling(not actually having to go into the hole), while still making it less hard to dig the ground away in front of your enemies.

Another idea was that you could remove the ramps by filling them up with ground. Even when it's underwater.(Seriously, not being able to build into the water is a mayor annoyance to me. I'm Dutch, it runs thorugh my veins to recover huge tracts of land through over complicated means!)(It also would make aquifers less of a bother, now I think about it...)

[Silverionmox]

I think the new channels are a net improvement. No more dwarves channelling themselves into an oubliette, no more cyberneticly operated long-distance picks. Man up, people. Neat channels require dwarves to go down in them. Sooner or later most rivers, lakes, etc will get ramped edges anyway.

How much water does a square with a ramp in it contain, anyway?

Flowing water ought to be able to erode ramps away.

[bhamv]

I'm finding this new type of channeling unfun, for the aesthetic and gameplay reasons already mentioned.

Regarding Toady's rationale for the new channeling, to prevent players from easily getting an early defense, I agree with his logic but not quite with his implementation. 

The suggestion for being able to remove ramps from above is a good one, I would support that, as it would fix the aesthetic and gameplay problems I have. 

Another option would be to make channeling take longer - for example double the time it was before - to make an insta-channel defense harder to create, yet not create the extra ramps problem.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Pilsu: I suppose you were referring to my post.

The problem I see comes from what I see with my own behavior: Let's say there is a poll about improvements to HFS. I have never breached it and am not planning to do so in the near future. So, I will not even read that suggestion thread much less answer that poll. It is not something to blame the forum for or anything, but simply how things work.

Thus, I think it is reasonable to assume that most of those not participating in the poll are more or less indifferent to it, while those who feel strongly in either direction are likely to voice their opinion. Or do you vote in all polls about game features you never encounter and do not plan to encounter?

General: Considering the amount of noise, it is interesting to see that the faction for a re-constitution of the old system has dropped below 50%... But, this is just a short term result and I hope that more people will voice their opinions and vote to give us a better impression.

However, reading all this about having succeeded in beating the game and then moving on to solely aesthetic megaprojects made me wonder: How come that people can pump magma 50 z-levels up and construct and contrieve the most ambitious and absurd constructions, yet, they are not able to figure out a way to integrate a single ramp tile into their design.

 And given how most people seem to see their dwarves as canon fodder anyway, the argument of not wanting to lose a dwarf during the construction of a megaproject seems also unlikely - as does the argument of rare picks - if you are building your magma-spewing dragon statue, I am pretty sure you have more than one pick in your stock piles.

Deathworks

[Another]

I'd rather choose old functionality. All pro- and contra- arguments have already been repeated several times. As well as some counter-counter-counter-...arguments.

New system + "remove ramps from above" would IMHO be the best solution.

[ntp]

IIRC Toady made this change not as an attempt to "improve" channelling, but to make channelling much harder to use as a quickly creatable superdefense.

Can anybody provide a proof link to the original message from Toady about this change?

[Pickled Tink]

However, reading all this about having succeeded in beating the game and then moving on to solely aesthetic megaprojects made me wonder: How come that people can pump magma 50 z-levels up and construct and contrieve the most ambitious and absurd constructions, yet, they are not able to figure out a way to integrate a single ramp tile into their design.

 And given how most people seem to see their dwarves as canon fodder anyway, the argument of not wanting to lose a dwarf during the construction of a megaproject seems also unlikely - as does the argument of rare picks - if you are building your magma-spewing dragon statue, I am pretty sure you have more than one pick in your stock piles.

Deathworks

I can only speak for myself here, but I use plenty of ramps in my mega project designs. However they have their place. unfortunately, this place is not involved in any fluid interactions. I am also something of a perfectionist. The blocks have to be made of just the right kind of material, and I am not above adding or modding reactions to smelt something common like diorite into something aesthetically pleasing like a dozen olivine blocks when I'm running short and cannot find a source on map.

And dwarves, while their deaths are inevitable, are tools. As I have heard said many times: "A craftsman must take care of his tools" (Unless he is building a concentration camp, like I did for a laugh). I will not needlessly send a dwarf to an avoidable construction death simply because it is expedient. The knock on effect of that dwarfs death, and the unrecoverability of his gear and corpse have a detrimental effect on not just my dwarves happiness stat by my own (Especially since I tend not to do too much metalsmithing, preferring to use my metal bars to build interesting towers).

[Another]

There is no reason to distrust this:

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

It should be noted that blocking invaders can now be achieved with 2 times+1 miner's units of work relative to what it took before the change.

# ground
_ channel, ramp removed as second step
> downward ramp

Code: [Select]

##_#
##_#
#>_# outside
##_#
##_#