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

[LegoLord]

I was referring to the requirement to floor over the entire tube you channeled.  No need to bite my head off.

And it's much simpler than you're making it, actually.  Don't try to over think it.  Apply Occam's Razor to your solutions.  Dig a downstair at one end.  Use the (d)ig designation for the majority of the channel (don't bother with ramps or channels in the first place, it's always caused some problems), make the last dugout tile of the breach end a fortification (Which you may want in case of critters come in that way anyway), and use the channel function for the last tile.  It was easier that way last version, and it is this version.  The solution is the same, it's just the problem that is different.  It used to be making dwarves go the long way around a channel.  Now the problem is crispy dwarves.  It would make trouble in the long term then, the short term now.  But the simplest solution is simply to make the problem not come up at all, and always has been.  User error, not system error.

The impact can be significant to players enjoyment of the game.

So if it doesn't make defense harder, what else does it do to impact gameplay other than mildly annoy a minority (40% of Suggestion's regulars - pretty small) of players?

And my understanding is that by "stopgap" is that it delays things.  It's not for making a quick and hasty defense in the face of a sudden attack harder - it's to increase the period of vulnerability.  It effectively does a little more than triple the time it takes to establish a moat (the "little more" being attributed to possibly needing a bridge to get a dwarf back, depending on which side you take the ramp out on).

[Squirrelloid]

I was referring to the requirement to floor over the entire tube you channeled.  No need to bite my head off.

And it's much simpler than you're making it, actually.  Don't try to over think it.  Apply Occam's Razor to your solutions.  Dig a downstair at one end.  Use the (d)ig designation for the majority of the channel (don't bother with ramps or channels in the first place, it's always caused some problems), make the last dugout tile of the breach end a fortification (Which you may want in case of critters come in that way anyway), and use the channel function for the last tile.  It was easier that way last version, and it is this version.  The solution is the same, it's just the problem that is different.  It used to be making dwarves go the long way around a channel.  Now the problem is crispy dwarves.  It would make trouble in the long term then, the short term now.  But the simplest solution is simply to make the problem not come up at all, and always has been.  User error, not system error.

You're hilarious.

Old system lets you do everything the new channel system does?  Tree falls on you - user error, not system error.  How hard is it to look up one z-level.  Oh yeah, you had to cut that anyway, so why is there a tree even there anymore?  User error x2.

Taking away capability to avoid user error is stupid.  And certainly defending a new system because it prevents one type of user error in favor of creating another is hypocritical.

The impact can be significant to players enjoyment of the game.

So if it doesn't make defense harder, what else does it do to impact gameplay other than mildly annoy a minority (40% of Suggestion's regulars - pretty small) of players?

You mean a change that <20% thinks is an improvement?  Gee, which number is more significant here.  Also, I would characterize us as more than mildly annoyed.

And my understanding is that by "stopgap" is that it delays things.  It's not for making a quick and hasty defense in the face of a sudden attack harder - it's to increase the period of vulnerability.  It effectively does a little more than triple the time it takes to establish a moat (the "little more" being attributed to possibly needing a bridge to get a dwarf back, depending on which side you take the ramp out on).

The period of vulnerability doesn't start until year 3.  How long do you think it takes to carve an impassable moat in the new system?  This argument is so specious its insulting.

[LegoLord]

I get the feeling that you misunderstand part of what I am saying.

It is not a new user error replacing an old one.  It's the same user error.  It's just that instead of a chance of a situation arising of dwarves later on, say, getting trapped on the wrong side of the channel that feeds your moat by invaders while they were outside (and thus getting killed), there is a chance of a situation arising in which a single dwarf is killed.

And that's only 20% of those who actually look at this thread.  Because honestly, the only reason I checked this thread and clicked the poll is because I like providing information for them.  More people voting in opposition will be looking for threads like this, if only subconsciously, even if they normally don't bother with polls.  So the 20%, while we can't say is actually much larger than it appears, can be said to be likely to be a larger percentage than it appears, at least a little.  Then there's the ever-incoming flow of people that will only know this system, and will learn with it, and maybe be upset if it's reversed.

As for making an impassable moat?  Depends on how big an area you go for.  If it's big enough that it took a year and a half with the old system, then it will not be done by that year 3.  You're now restricted to smaller above-ground areas if you want to establish defenses quickly enough.  Before you hit the underground, a huge area can be a huge advantage with regards to wood (and as a result, wood byproducts like fuel, beds, barrels, and training bolts before you have enough animals to make bone bolts).

[Pickled Tink]

At least a tree falling on you couldn't set your fort on fire... *grumble*

[bhamv]

I dislike the new channeling, and voted so in the poll, but my solution is actually quite simple:  I've gone back to 40d.

[RavingManiac]

As many previous commenters have said, just make ramps removable from above. Problem solved.

[Grocer]

As many previous commenters have said, just make ramps removable from above. Problem solved.

Be kinda weird if you could do that while it was covered with magma, and it wouldn't fix stupid miner problems.  Simplest solution* is to just revert.  Add in a carve downward ramp option since it seems to make some people tingly inside.  Increase the time it takes to channel out a tile, cause that was the goal of the change in the first place.  Everybody gets happy.

*Simplest that makes it do what I want it to. Though I suppose that if miners got stunned for a few frames after digging out a tile to let magma/water onto the ramp before they decide where they're going to go, that'd be pretty decent.

[Squirrelloid]

As for making an impassable moat?  Depends on how big an area you go for.  If it's big enough that it took a year and a half with the old system, then it will not be done by that year 3.  You're now restricted to smaller above-ground areas if you want to establish defenses quickly enough.  Before you hit the underground, a huge area can be a huge advantage with regards to wood (and as a result, wood byproducts like fuel, beds, barrels, and training bolts before you have enough animals to make bone bolts).

Takes less than 6 months to totally channel around a 6x6 embark area in .40d with 2 unskilled miners.  Embark areas are now smaller on average, and remove ramps is really fast.  I'm guessing 'moating' the entire map takes less than 6 months still.

[Rotten]

I was referring to the requirement to floor over the entire tube you channeled.  No need to bite my head off.

And it's much simpler than you're making it, actually.  Don't try to over think it.  Apply Occam's Razor to your solutions.  Dig a downstair at one end.  Use the (d)ig designation for the majority of the channel (don't bother with ramps or channels in the first place, it's always caused some problems), make the last dugout tile of the breach end a fortification (Which you may want in case of critters come in that way anyway), and use the channel function for the last tile.  It was easier that way last version, and it is this version.  The solution is the same, it's just the problem that is different.  It used to be making dwarves go the long way around a channel.  Now the problem is crispy dwarves.  It would make trouble in the long term then, the short term now.  But the simplest solution is simply to make the problem not come up at all, and always has been.  User error, not system error.

Wasn't trying to come off as nasty, I'm just irritated at my miners for continuously jumping into channels. Sorry if I came off that way.
The problem with your scheme is that it only works for some things. I had several miners drown when digging my power room on a previous fort (which died to a random crash) because the idiots kept jumping into the channels, which I needed channeled for the waterwheels, aesthetics be damned. In the end, I ended up digging tunnels and then channeling them, but it was still very annoying, and I needed access ramps on several parts of the channel to reach the whole network, which meant my miners used them for shortcuts. Ugh.

I don't really see what's wrong with reverting and adding a 'dig downward ramp' designation. Make channeling take longer if you want, but give it back! Please!

Also, how to dig channel, 14th century style (for those who say you need a rope- what)

[Sean Mirrsen]

The problem with the miners can be avoided entirely if the path cost for ramps is upped, so that the dwarf will consider a nearby floor route in favor of going into the channel. There are different ways of getting it to work the way you old-style people want it to. Dwarves being careless around magma can count as a bug, so it can be fixed. Aesthetic troubles can be solved with a "remove ramp from above" designation - the one Rotten so masterfully depicted. Maybe "Collapse Ramp" instead of "Remove ramp from above", but it would still be the best way.

[Pickled Tink]

I had an amusing and annoying channel incident with my first attempt to get a fort for the magma sea throne room challenge. Since I decided I wanted to build my fort at a very low Z level right above the magma sea so I wouldn't have to deal with huge transit times and making multiple forts on the way down, I opted to embark with four miners and dig a 2x2 square shaft down into the underground. Since I did not want to have my dwarves carry their embarkation stuff down a hundred floors then run back up another hundred to do it again, I had the northeast corner of each square a channel, and would have dumped everything down this hole to be put in the new stockpiles at the bottom to save travel time.

Tragedy struck at the second level of underground however: My channel miner dug the floor out from underneath himself and fell 8 floors to his death. Mildly annoyed by this, but determined to accomplish my objective, I carried on. Then at the third underground layer it happened again, another miner falling to his death. It was at this point I decided to call that embark a wash, closing the game so I could reuse the embark fresh. Second time I had no problems.

These kinds of incidents are not very easily avoidable if you are going for a deep lair right off. It is extremely difficult to keep track of your miners as they progress through z levels and you never know when they are going to hit underground (Unless you have already hit it). It's all a matter of luck to determine if he is going to be sensible and stand on the stairs or going to be an idiot and knock the floor out from under his feet.

The ramping thing means a dwarf will dig a new channel from inside his own channel, which really isn't a great idea no matter which way you look at it (Well, there is one engineering project I have envisioned that such an ability would be useful for, but that project is extremely complex, and all it results in is a sprinkler system).

And no. I am not going to pause and individually designate as many as 120 tiles on as many different levels just to keep a stupid dwarf safe. I have better things to do with my time, like design, dig, and construct a ramp to let the caravan wagons make that same as-many-as-120 z level trip.

[Lord Darkstar]

The impact can be significant to players enjoyment of the game.

So if it doesn't make defense harder, what else does it do to impact gameplay other than mildly annoy a minority (40% of Suggestion's regulars - pretty small) of players?

And my understanding is that by "stopgap" is that it delays things.  It's not for making a quick and hasty defense in the face of a sudden attack harder - it's to increase the period of vulnerability.  It effectively does a little more than triple the time it takes to establish a moat (the "little more" being attributed to possibly needing a bridge to get a dwarf back, depending on which side you take the ramp out on).

Apply fortification to channelling? THIS is not something NEW players are going to know. That's a trick most DF players don't know about! If they don't get if off the forums or wiki, to get it early, they'll have to flood something with fortifications to learn liquids pass through them. It isn't something I've used in the past, as it seems an active exploit, rather than a permitted by design feature. But any port in a storm, I suppose.

If you look at the poll, the plurality of the readers feel that the old style is best, and there is no to very little value in the new style of channelling. A very clear MAJORITY of users at 63% feel that old style is best (option 2 and 3), but 23% see some real advantages to also down ramp from above. A minority of users at 41% find the new style best (option 1 and 3), but only 19% find new style better (preferable). Clearly, the poll shows the user base is against losing the functionality of old channelling, and only a small minority prefer the change.

Now, the bias of the poll is unknown--- but seeing as almost as many people don't care about the change (17%) as those that prefer new style to old style (19%), it may be a somewhat decent sampling of the true user base of DF.

As for early defense--- the changes to weapons and military system has already made it more difficult for early fortresses to be defended. The amount of knowledge a new user needed to defend their fortress prior to 31 was minor. Now it has gone WAY UP, and with the "missing noble" issue, woe to the fortress that gets attacked, loses its leader and arsenal dwarf. There will be NO swapping of weapons and armor for the remainder until a new leader finally emerges. At this point, the stopgap measures should be to make early survivor easier (remember, you can no longer get easy food either--- your dwarves have to create magic mud underground to farm even in "soil types" currently, so you have to scrounge up seeds from the local fauna and grow it on proper soil above ground to get early food if you don't have an easy source of water or find a muddy cavern very early). Version 28.x.40d was actually pretty easy going for new players--- if they had an understanding of games like Serf City/Settlers, Dungeon Keeper, and Evil Genius. If they are new to fantasy builder and industry cycle games, they have a mountain to climb. Now the mountain has gotten more challenging for new users as it is so much more difficult to start a fortress and survive your first couple of ambushes. They show up with their iron, silver, and gold weapons and just cut through "pioneering" dwarves now, where before, you could easily outnumber them with dwarves, and manage to survive at least one goblin ambush if they arrived before your defenses were completely ready.

I know, I'm an idiot, and I am adjusting to the new version, but before, the game had a little give for not doing things perfectly to start with. Currently, there's a lot more "FUN" and a lot less fun in version 0.31. Some of that is due to bugs that will be eliminated, some of that is due to some tuning needs to be done for the new systems/sub-systems. It's DF, I know it will happen. I have faith in Toady. I know he's out to make the very best game he can, and frankly, I am in pure awe of what he has done, and what he is doing (and that is from a professional software developer who has some small understanding of the effort involved). I look forward to cursing that goblins are smart enough to build bridges to get across moats, and bring ladders to get over low walls, and will even bring/build seige towers to get over high walls, or they have learned to ride giant spiders who can climb any non-liquid moats and walls no matter what, or learned to ride war elephants and rhinos to knock over single thickness walls and floodgates (used for "wide door" defense), and humans and others learning to dig into my fortress, and all the other really cool things on the planned list. But I have a small, nagging worry that if the game gets too hard, too early, we might not get to see it, due to the lack of any real growth of new players into the base. We have the fun to see the new changes, in small increments, so our learning curve is shallow. But new players? Things are rough enough on them. I don't see them sticking things out to get to that basic level of DF skills to be able to get a new fortress up and running and being able to have lots of their own fun until something finally goes catastrophically wrong, and their fortress spirals into failure, or an epic seige force comes along and destroy's their fortress. It's just a worry in a corner of my mind, but as the starting difficulty goes up, the fewer new players will slog through it will be the reality.

[Tarran]

Fact is, lots of the players that hate the new channeling likely haven't gotten used to it yet.

Similar to, for example, the new You Tube video page layout. I hated it at first, but after a while I just kinda got used to it. Just give the new channeling some time, you'll all get used to it sometime.

[Pilsu]

Having the same attitude as a cripple does nothing to improve the game.

[Tarran]

Having the same attitude as a cripple does nothing to improve the game.

Neither does having the attitude of a stick-in-the-mud.