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

[immibis]

Or it could be avoided by not creating the ramp. Then the dwarf would just get stuck instead of setting your !!fortress!! on fire.

[Riloki]

.... You are aware I'm referring to the new channeling system, not the old, aren't you? >_________>

[Squirrelloid]

I for one don't like mindlessly sacrificing my hard working dwarves just to avoid unsightly breaches, although i'm starting to consider it.  I hate the blinking triangles.

You can't see how deep the liquid is over a ramp.  (This can actually be pretty significant if you're trying to figure out if a magma forge is going to stay powered yet, and there's a moody dwarf waiting for you to build one - having to use k every 10 seconds is not really acceptable when you should be able to tell at a glance).

Its an eyesore.

It looks like poor design.

It will look really bad when 3D visualizers get updated to the new version.

Its dwarf-pathable.  And dwarves seem to have lost any fear they once had of magma.

-------
arguments that the new channeling makes avoiding death by ninja tree are silly - aren't you going to chop those trees down anyway so you can also strip mine that tile?  Couldn't you just look to avoid designating ramps under trees before?  Its slightly inconvenient, but there's no new finished product capability here.

Whereas there is no sane way to achieve what the old channeling achieved during liquid breaches.  And there are plenty of situations where the new channeling has made liquid breaching even more dangerous since its easy to imagine relatively open areas where you want to breach a liquid, and the newly ramped tile may well be the fastest route away afterwards.  You could control whether or not you designated under a tree - you can't control which side of a tile a miner digs on.

-------
Anyone who thinks the change in channeling has any effect on defensive preparations is a sophist and a moron.  Seriously.  Telling lies to make people think its an improvement helps no one.  And I don't care if its the stated reason - that the change actually made defensive preparations in any real way harder is a lie.  I know it, I think most of the people spouting it know it, and anyone whose played through a few fortresses knows it.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Like I said, I'll much rather use a screwpump. Safer and more controllable. I agree on the lack of flow display though, this is one of the things that are unavoidable in the current design.

I still have to say, ramped channels are a benefit more frequently than they're a drawback. In most of the examples including danger to a dwarf breaching into a flow, any danger can be avoided with a tiny bit of foresight and a 1-tile floor. Whereas before you would have to act in response to a dwarf getting stuck on an island (possibly forgetting him for a season), now you can do the same preemptively.

And no, it does have an effect on defensive preparations. The magnitude of the effect is irrelevant, it still makes you do more to achieve the same thing.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Riloki: If you are talking about using traffic zones, your explanation is unnecessarily bothersome because you can designate traffic zones on solid rock and they will not be removed when you free the rock. So, no need to monitor your miner because of that.

And you also forgot the method I listed: Placing floor grates on the adjacent 1-3 tile(s) - they will interrupt pathing using the ramp, so no dwarf will go down there as it is a dead end.
Also note that this takes effect the moment you order the grates to be built - you don't have to actually wait until they get hauled there.

Deathworks

[Squirrelloid]

And no, it does have an effect on defensive preparations. The magnitude of the effect is irrelevant, it still makes you do more to achieve the same thing.

How does this have any effect whatsoever?

Defenses are just as secure.  Time has never been relevant - you have 2 years before the first goblin ambush will show up.  You don't expect me to believe that it takes more than 2 years to remove a few ramps, do you?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Why are you thinking of time? It will make you do twice the designations. Time has no meaning here unless you're trying for an insta-trench as the goblins march to your gates.

The idea is that it's too simple. Too cheap. An impenetrable moat should feel like more of an accomplishment.

[Pickled Tink]

...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.

Everyone can make a mistake, even game designers (Just look at all the bugs for examples).

The fact of the matter is that the change did not accomplish it's objective, and introduced a number of additional construction hazards, the only way to avoid which is to entirely scrap line by line designations and do it tile by tile.

As I said. It is entirely possible to build a large surface fortress simply by having a single woodcutter knock down a forest and the other six build an invincible small apartment block, warehouses, and outer defensive walls out of the wood, with a wooden trade depot under an grand wooden pagoda that you can show off to goblins when they arrive for the first time.

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.

Not that I am aware of. You can mod critters and most materials, but you can't mod stuff like channeling and such. At least not without rewriting the game itself, which I can't do. I'm only an "amateur" modder though.

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

I have not actually considered that possibility, or explored it in any detail. haven't done any collapses in the new version yet so I'm not sure how the changes work or if there are any changes (These days, if something is collapsing I've done something wrong), but I cant see how they would work using the old mechanics. Then again, I haven't actually done any deep thinking on the subject.

At present If I want magma I drill down to the magma sea and then pump it up to floor -50-60 where I typically fort (I tap the sea because I may want a lot of magma very quickly). This is, however, an absolutely ridiculous amount of labour to safely harness magmas melty power for smelting and booby traps, especially since you need to smelt a lot of stuff first to get the stuff you need to build the pumps in the first place. Unfortunately it also requires me building a fortified power farm over a river on the surface, but once it's there I can use it for other stuff as well, like keeping my fire extinguisher system all filled up. But I'd have built those eventually anyway. I've only done this once so far because of the absurd amount of wood this requires, which I do not have.

Finally, I should note that a dwarf with a pick is hard to truly trap, and I'd rather have a dwarf trapped on an island by a magma flow than cheerfully walking through the magma flow via ramp to come back and set the place on fire. At least the trapped way everyone doesn't die.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You should really think again about that "didn't complete its objective" thing. Like I said, time is irrelevant. (Lunchtime doubly so)

Say whatever you want, a tile-wide moat is the cheapest impregnable defence available, requiring no material input and just one designation. As a stopgap measure until AI critters can deal with such obstacles, the ramped channels work fine, because they up the requirements on the moat. You have to not only designate a channel, but then you have to remove the ramps as well - and in the lack of a "remove-from-above" feature, do it from below, while digging an extra ramp for the miner to get out when he's done. It makes the moat more like a true construction project, and that's not a bad thing.

[JohnLukeG]

That's such a minor inconvenience to justify the tool we've lost.

[immibis]

.... You are aware I'm referring to the new channeling system, not the old, aren't you? >_________>

Yes, and I'm showing why the old one was better. *ducks*

You should really think again about that "didn't complete its objective" thing. Like I said, time is irrelevant. (Lunchtime doubly so)

Say whatever you want, a tile-wide moat is the cheapest impregnable defence available, requiring no material input and just one designation. As a stopgap measure until AI critters can deal with such obstacles, the ramped channels work fine, because they up the requirements on the moat. You have to not only designate a channel, but then you have to remove the ramps as well - and in the lack of a "remove-from-above" feature, do it from below, while digging an extra ramp for the miner to get out when he's done. It makes the moat more like a true construction project, and that's not a bad thing.

If you don't like doing it, don't do it.

[Pilsu]

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?

If they have no opinion, then obviously their opinion is irrelevant. Seeing as they have none and don't give a shit either way.

You failed to address why this chunk of nonvoters would tip the scales in the favor of either. There is no statistical basis for the belief that the nonvoters' opinions would differ from established patterns.


Also, from what I gathered from the wording of past posts, Toady never actually said anything about balancing. It was just speculation and the rest of you &¤%!#¤%# fail at a game of telephone.

[Silverionmox]

The whole discussion boils down to the annoyance of having a ramp where a channel would look a bit nicer. Except Riloki's example, but that's avoidable by building a single tile of flooring. Dwarves pathing through magma shouldn't happen anyway, unless something worse if after them (and even then only the most brave ones would do it). Dwarves don't care if their feet burn, that's the problem.

Since people are also annoyed at having stuff lying in their moats, both problems can be solved by having a way to execute dredging: that would take all the stuff on the bottom of a square and put it ashore - including a ramp, in the form of a pile of mud, if there was one present before the dredging. For removing a rock ramp, we'll have to start looking for divers. For a rock ramp in lava: that's just not possible without magic. Magma is powerful: that power cuts both ways.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Pilsu: The question is, do a majority of all the Dwarf Fortress players want the old channelling back? So, if 90% don't have an opinion on this, then the answer is "No.". In that case, Toady One would not need worry about driving away his fan base as some people in the other thread suggested (even mentioning that he was getting his funds from that fan base!). Or in other words, do the people complaining about the change really represent a sizable part of the community or are they just a relatively loud minority?

If a lot of people do care, you can assume that a lot of people will vote, thus bringing the vote count to a considerable level comparable to the general suggestion votes (of course, no vote will ever get all forum goers to participate, so we have to make such a comparison).

Secondly, you have done very poor research then:

[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

That is the statement by Toady One everyone is referring to. He talks about "too easy" and "more of a project".

Deathworks

[G-Flex]

Also, from what I gathered from the wording of past posts, Toady never actually said anything about balancing. It was just speculation and the rest of you &¤%!#¤%# fail at a game of telephone.

Yeah, where "speculation" == "I said it myself at least once or twice, based on firsthand knowledge, and provided direct quotes".


It's obvious that it's less of a true "fix" and more of a method to just make it slightly slower or take more effort to create an impassable channel, and Toady stated as much himself, basically.