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

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well how about we make the "old" channelling require that you designate on the lower Z-level as well? I'm sure that would be very useful.

But seriously, if I want to dig into the ground from above, I'd very much like to do it from above. Rotten's two-step process for digging a pit is exactly what I'm proposing. Dig slope, collapse slope.

Also, since when do miners dig channels under themselves? I haven't tried multi-tier simultaneous channelling yet, but I kinda thought they'll prefer a designation next to them. It's a bug if they don't.

[Squirrelloid]

They've always been willing to dig up ramps from above the designation.  As hte new channeling is identical, I imagine it works in exactly the same way. 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, then it's another bug. So far we have just the two bugs surfacing with the new channelling - dwarves pathing where they're not supposed to, and dwarves choosing designations that will leave them trapped. Both are addressable. For example, the "pathing into magma" issue can be solved simply by making magma flows update the pathmap according to their dangerousness - making "restricted pathing" tiles on all neighboring tiles on the same level, so that it's impossible to path onto a square that's even near flowing magma. Especially prudent now that magma actually creates heat.

[Grocer]

So, what do you think we should do other then revert the channels? I just want to know.

This discussion has spread over three threads so far, so it's probably worth restating.  Revert channeling, increase the time to completion to make insta-moat defenses more difficult.  Add in a new carve downward ramp designation, as it simplifies strip-mining operations and a significant subset of people dig it.  Potentially add in a cancel remove floor announcement about how there's a tree on that floor, similar to damp/warm stone announcements. 

Unless there are programming complications (entirely possible), this is probably a simpler fix to the AI issues which crop up with both methods - you can just choose the one that's best for your needs at the moment and fixing the AI outright is (I imagine) a much more involved task.  We know that both methods both work best for certain situations though we obviously disagree about which are the most dire.  Removing ramps from above has been mooted several times, but it seems like an awkward (and only partial) solution.  Put in both methods and pretty much everyone'd be happy with it AFAICT.

[darkflagrance]

So, what do you think we should do other then revert the channels? I just want to know.

This discussion has spread over three threads so far, so it's probably worth restating.  Revert channeling, increase the time to completion to make insta-moat defenses more difficult.  Add in a new carve downward ramp designation, as it simplifies strip-mining operations and a significant subset of people dig it.  Potentially add in a cancel remove floor announcement about how there's a tree on that floor, similar to damp/warm stone announcements. 

Unless there are programming complications (entirely possible), this is probably a simpler fix to the AI issues which crop up with both methods - you can just choose the one that's best for your needs at the moment and fixing the AI outright is (I imagine) a much more involved task.  We know that both methods both work best for certain situations though we obviously disagree about which are the most dire.  Removing ramps from above has been mooted several times, but it seems like an awkward (and only partial) solution.  Put in both methods and pretty much everyone'd be happy with it AFAICT.

I definitely agree with this.

Also, the two bugs that Sean lists probably already existed with the original system of channeling, as well as the old system of up-ramping (which the new channeling is basically a clone of). Pathfinding fixes don't change the fact that functionality has been lost, in exchange for more death-creating situations, although solving these problems would be nice in making other areas of the game more functional.

[Pilsu]

So, what do you think we should do other then revert the channels? I just want to know.

This discussion has spread over three threads so far, so it's probably worth restating.  Revert channeling, increase the time to completion to make insta-moat defenses more difficult.  Add in a new carve downward ramp designation, as it simplifies strip-mining operations and a significant subset of people dig it.

Personally I'd want to be able to remove ramps from above instead. It'd have uses beyond just channeling.

[Shades]

Personally I'd want to be able to remove ramps from above instead. It'd have uses beyond just channeling.

Can we add removing stairs from above to that as well

[Silverionmox]

They ought to have an appropriate tool for that, though. Dwarves are short, and their arms are shorter still.

[TKTom]

Personally I'd want to be able to remove ramps from above instead. It'd have uses beyond just channeling.

Can we add removing stairs from above to that as well

You mean, so called "orphan"* stairs. I'd like to be able to do that too.

They ought to have an appropriate tool for that, though. Dwarves are short, and their arms are shorter still.

 They do, it's called a pick. I presume it has a longer handle than a human pick, it just makes sense. More difficult to use but it adds to functionailty.

             That seems dwarven to me.


* Just thinking about the use of the word orphan here. It doesn't really seem appropriate to me, perhaps "widow" stairs would be better? Implying that they are one remaining out of a pair. Orphan stairs haven't necessarily lost a parent, they may just as well (and, given the options for up stair removal it's more likely to) have been the parent.

[Shades]

* Just thinking about the use of the word orphan here. It doesn't really seem appropriate to me, perhaps "widow" stairs would be better? Implying that they are one remaining out of a pair. Orphan stairs haven't necessarily lost a parent, they may just as well (and, given the options for up stair removal it's more likely to) have been the parent.

Orphaned is often used to talk about anything that nothing else links to as well, so you can use it there.

Although I mean stairs that I didn't want to remove from the bottom (so the whole down/up part but from above)

[Silverionmox]

We can do without half stairs in the first place. Stairs should be an element that you carve/build in a square (like a wall, fortification, floodgate, hatch cover, ...). It allows a dwarf in that square to reach the square above (unless that square is solid rock, has a floor, a hatch cover or whatever).

[Sean Mirrsen]

Can somebody restate exactly what functionality was lost? I kinda lost that particular train of thought. As far as I can see, for all intents and purposes that don't involve "a cleaner look", the new channels are just as functional as the old ones, sans the initial reason behind the change. If the existing bugs with pathing "into magma's way" and dwarves getting themselves stuck are fixed, and the double-channel functionality is added, why not keep the new system? It makes setting up channels more difficult, and has more uses than just the "dig empty space" command.

[Grumman]

Can somebody restate exactly what functionality was lost?

The functionality lost is the ability to cut into potentially dangerous terrain without the ramp-carving AI killing our dwarves. As this post says, even if you do everything right, it can still kill your dwarves.

[zwei]

Can somebody restate exactly what functionality was lost? I kinda lost that particular train of thought. As far as I can see, for all intents and purposes that don't involve "a cleaner look", the new channels are just as functional as the old ones, sans the initial reason behind the change. If the existing bugs with pathing "into magma's way" and dwarves getting themselves stuck are fixed, and the double-channel functionality is added, why not keep the new system? It makes setting up channels more difficult, and has more uses than just the "dig empty space" command.

Consider this:

Code: [Select]


z0:

#####
#####
#####
#####
#####

I want to dig z0 to look like this:

#####
#.#.#
#####
#.#.#
#####

That is, pits that have no escape and are one-tile only (no pathing) into which i can pit animals like cats.
(when covered with hatches linked to lever on repeat, they are also neat cage trap replacement on battlefiled.)

New channeling gives me this:

#####
#^#^#
#####
#^#^#
#####

Ramps which means animals can just escape.
If i would clean it up and solve it by more digging i get this, removing ramps and constructing natural walls:

#######
#.O.###
#O#####
#.O.O^#
#######

That is no longer just cleaner look ...


You simply can no longer dig one tile hole. You just can't.

[Squirrelloid]

It makes setting up channels more difficult, and has more uses than just the "dig empty space" command.

More tedious =/= more difficult.

And the new version has no uses.  Its just carve up ramps designated on a different level.  Stop pretending new functionality was added.