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

[Pickled Tink]

I haven't encountered the functionality loss though, that's the problem, I guess. For me, the new channelling is nothing but an invaluable tool. The old channelling was also an invaluable tool, but for different reasons, and those reasons still hold with the new channelling. I guess I'm just more wary of magma and don't make five-wide shafts into hell knows where without an exploratory shaft or two. And above all, don't consider visible ramps to be any sort of hindrance to visual splendour.

That's your choice. Others, such as myself, do care. And the ramps we can't get rid of are annoying. They sit there, taunting us... whispering "You cannot get rid of me... I offend your sense of aesthetics..." I have no problem with a dig down ramp designation. I just want my old channels back so I can safely breach liquids without worrying if Urist McFireLover is going to go burn down my fort if not massively micromanaged with split second timing.

You and the person above you can both have your old channelling back when the AI can deal with it.

The AI can't deal with walls. Remove them too. The AI can't deal with traps. Get rid of them. The AI can't deal with a two tile deep hole. Remove the Z axis.

In case you could not tell, the above was heavily sarcastic.

Saying that we can "have it back when the AI can handle it" is a double standard. You use it against channels when you are unwilling to apply to all other forms of potentially unbeatable defenses.

But lets go by designations.

Unbeatable square surface plot, old channeling: 4 designations (Four sides)
Unbeatable wall across entrance: 1 designation.
Unbeatable square surface plot, new channeling: 5-6 designations (Depends on if you dug into the side of a cliff or not if you have to use one or two to get rid of the ramps leading in. This is made assuming the bottom of the channel is linked to your fort)

None of these allows caravans in.

In all these examples, the wall is the strongest because you cant get shot at across a wall. You can't make use of the surface in 0.31.03 anyway, since farms are broken, and trees are found in the underground where it is more practical to use walls built two levels tall because of flying enemies (Bugbats, for example).

On top of that, since you can still build the unbeatable channels in this version, with a little more annoyance, the whole "When the AI can catch up" argument falls flat on it's face.

In principle, I'm only against the old channels as a means of easy defence. But if your dwarves know how to walk around magma and don't fall into the holes they make, would it really inconvenience you that much if you need to dig a smooth channel as a two-step process instead of one designation? I mean, that already happens with engravings, and I think they're used at least as frequently as channels. I'm just looking at a possibility for more detailed gameplay here.

It is almost as if you haven't read a thing I have said. If you had you would already know the answer to the question because I already answered it.

You have asserted it is an exploit. You have failed to show how.

You have openly stated that you are in favour of it *because* it makes it more annoying to channel, not because it is any more difficult to do, or changes the game.

You have no arguments here, just assertions and fallacies. My summary of you and your position two posts ago seems to have been fairly accurate. There is little point to further discussion with you since your "arguments" are not founded in reason.

[Shades]

In principle, I'm only against the old channels as a means of easy defence. But if your dwarves know how to walk around magma and don't fall into the holes they make, would it really inconvenience you that much if you need to dig a smooth channel as a two-step process instead of one designation? I mean, that already happens with engravings, and I think they're used at least as frequently as channels. I'm just looking at a possibility for more detailed gameplay here.

It's not a two step process. It can't be done currently.
It's not like the new system actually makes building impassible channels (noticeably) harder.

[Ilmoran]

Fixing the AI bugs mentioned doesn't actually seem like much work, at least relative to the effort that went into changing the system to the way it works now.

Here's the quote from ToadyOne:

[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

Read the third line.  I'm not sure how you interpret that, but to me it says "I didn't intentionally change this, but it happened, and I decided to keep it".  As in, no effort spent specifically making the current system.

Aside from that, I think the majority of the people here would accept a 2 step designation process to make channels if it could be done from above. We currently do not have that option in any way.  The people in favor of the new channeling are also mostly against having a two-step process to make smooth channels from above (the "realism" crowd).  You yourself seem to be against changing the changing system, saying that we should settle for a two step designation, but that is a change from the current system.

[Squirrelloid]

Removed from above *through magma*?  That sounds more ridiculous than old channeling.

Anyway, my biggest complaint has always been the fugly liquid breaches.  I could care less about moating.  So the extra designation step is irrelevant to me, its the fact that I can't remove them when they're covered by water/magma that annoys me.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Fixing the AI bugs mentioned doesn't actually seem like much work, at least relative to the effort that went into changing the system to the way it works now.

Here's the quote from ToadyOne:

[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

Read the third line.  I'm not sure how you interpret that, but to me it says "I didn't intentionally change this, but it happened, and I decided to keep it".  As in, no effort spent specifically making the current system.

Aside from that, I think the majority of the people here would accept a 2 step designation process to make channels if it could be done from above. We currently do not have that option in any way.  The people in favor of the new channeling are also mostly against having a two-step process to make smooth channels from above (the "realism" crowd).  You yourself seem to be against changing the changing system, saying that we should settle for a two step designation, but that is a change from the current system.

Have you read the first line though? The one saying "we added ramps because it was too easy to block off invaders"? What I'm proposing is an upgrade and debug - fix the AI issues and make channelling anything except solid ground make "old style" empty space.

Even if destroying a ramp through magma is less realistic, we're talking about a game here. I don't think I ever stated my inclination towards realism here - that was the other crowd. I want an internally consistent and balanced gaming experience. For now, having channels start as ramps is an okay stopgap measure against their use as defences, and also a good retool that allows more things to be done with one designation. Its drawbacks are several bugs that came to attention with it, and aesthetic concerns that can be solved with a secondary feature that makes a lot of sense in this situation. The new tool isn't bad, and the old tool can be reintroduced at a later point, if attempts to fix readily apparent problems with its new implementation end with failure.

Ultimately though, this discussion isn't going anywhere. Our opinions only matter to the extent that Toady One is willing to work on them. He's got more pressing matters to attend to at this point, so we'll all have to endure being left as we are. One crowd without a tool they always used, the other crowd with the first crowd breathing down their necks, and me without my ultimate tool combination.

For the record, I cast my vote for the first option in the hopes of offsetting the massive lead the second one has on the rest, even though my standpoint technically puts me at the third.

[Pilsu]

So you deliberately vote for the wrong option just to "balance" the scales? People like you need to get punched for failing to understand ratings. Go back to sabotaging rottentomatoes or whatever it was.

I'm getting trolled aren't I? Sigh.

[Shades]

I'm getting trolled aren't I? Sigh.

Yes you are

[Footkerchief]

You don't have to use them, just like you don't have to use traps.  Play the game however you want, let others do the same.

This is a facet of the discussion that's been bothering me.  There are plenty of valid arguments against the new channeling system, but there's also an undercurrent of "taking away features is inherently bad."  The fact is that "features" -- many of which are just placeholders that players have grown attached to -- are going to get nerfed, replaced or outright removed as development goes forward, and it's not always feasible to put them in init options, world params, raws, etc.  Traps, for example, are 100% likely to get nerfed hard, and you might not be able to mod them back to their prior simplicity/effectiveness.

In other words, "play and let play" as a universal principle is useless and doomed.  It's only meaningful in the context of a specific feature that both 1) has compelling potential alternatives and 2) can feasibly be controlled by user options.  Those probably do both apply here, but for traps, it's possible they won't.

[Phmcw]

I don't understand how the new limitation are even somewhat more annoying than the old channeling.
This one is more realistic, more practical (whole zone designated...) and almost as easy to use in every way.
Pathing through magma is an obvious AI problem. A bug by every aspect and have nothing to do with channeling.

[Lord Darkstar]

I haven't encountered the functionality loss though, that's the problem, I guess.

Good for you. But I have, and I haven't even gotten to breaching magma yet. Just water and removing existing dug structural features.

And above all, don't consider visible ramps to be any sort of hindrance to visual splendour.

Well, a significant portion of the player base does.

And just a small point about the moat - you don't design the moat, it's impassable as it is. There's no ingenuity in designating a square around your entrance which automatically makes your entrance unreachable. Compare that with a hallway of traps, a magma trap, or even the long corridor with closing floodgates. That's ingenuity right there. The impassable channel is just an exploit. An Insurmountable Waist Height Fence, if you will.

First off, if its a channel that dwarves cannot get out of, it is more than waist height. In fact, a channel is DEEP enough for creatures to drown in, if it is filled with water. That means a channel is the full 7/7 height of a tile, remember? Waist height is somewhere between 2/7 (boot tops) and 3/7 height (chest). In fact, a channel is as DEEP as a wall is TALL. Should walls then be set to half height, so attackers can fire over them while on the same level and everything can cross it? Should you have to DOUBLE CONSTRUCT a wall to get full wall height of 1 full level? It is the same "balance" logic. Indeed, walls should require you to build 3 or even 5 times to get full height because they ALSO protect you from projectiles, while pits/moats only protect you from non-flying creatures passing through it, but ranged attacks still work.

Deciding where to put a moat, whether for defense purposes or aqueducting, is a planned construct. Just like building an irrigation chamber underground or a flooding chamber. Indeed, the player has to plan where they are going to put it in relation to their current and future fortress, if they want to make sure they aren't going to start dropping creatures in it or flood their underground. Why is that any less "dwarvenly" than building four walls and a door? You can make a wooden pallisade from the start, if you just bring enough wood. That would let you dig underground and store everything you brought, and then you could construct to your hearts content down there. With the new caverns, you can then just go exploratory digging until you find one, put up a farm and put up rock walls around your farm, and still be perfectly protected from attackers. No moat. Just starting with some wood, a pick, and using your mouse to draw a "construct wall" squared circle--- and suspending the job to finish the last wall tile until you've moved everything "into storage". Heck, you don't even need storage space, as you can cheat--- just designate a 1 tile "dump" inside your wooden pallisade, and mark ALL STARTING ITEMS in your wagon for dumping--- and just unforbid your wood after it is at your chosen dump/dig point. Break down the wagon, and dump that wood, complete the pallisade wall, and you are secure from all non-flying attackers--- and their missiles. Done deal, now get digging--- just like with a moat!

It isn't a balance issue, it's a lost functionality issue, and losing dwarf miners (and others) early when there isn't a need to. And it is so important because it affects people right away--- not in BUILDING a defensive moat (as that is still quite possible), but in losing dwarves and all the other downsides to the new channelling.

Think of it this way: One day Toady will release a version where all those no good people who just use trenches as their insta-defense will suddenly be shocked as the goblins put a wooden log across it and march right on over, and then march on inside to have Fun with the dwarves. On that day, people like us will laugh at them and use our mighty death machines/soldiers to bring pain and terror to the goblins in ever more creative ways, and the poor people looking sadly at the smoking ruins of their fort will have to run to catch up. That said, people quickly learn there are far more amusing ways to deal with goblins than digging a ditch. I'm trying to design a goblin pinball machine. Not sure if it'll work, but I won't know until I try

I look forward to the day that happens! It will be fun at times, and "FUN" at other times, I am sure. But it will be a welcome addition. However, channelling won't be reverted when that day comes. Meaning we will still need those AI fixes, and still have those blinking triangles, and probably won't know the difference between blue stone ramps down, water covered rams, etc.

In principle, I'm only against the old channels as a means of easy defence. But if your dwarves know how to walk around magma and don't fall into the holes they make, would it really inconvenience you that much if you need to dig a smooth channel as a two-step process instead of one designation? I mean, that already happens with engravings, and I think they're used at least as frequently as channels. I'm just looking at a possibility for more detailed gameplay here.

No, you are against the old system because TOADY has said he's against people using it as a cheap defense. That's a serious case of fanboyitis. No DF player really cares how other DF players build their fortresses. How I play my game does not in the slightest affect your game nor your enjoyment of your game. We are not playing MP. We are not competing for "Most Dwarf Points In the Land!". If I want to use cage traps everywhere, that doesn't affect your fun. If I want to build a giant tree out of rock and have my dwarves live in it and farm in it, that doesn't affect your enjoyment of the game. Sharing stories about it might make you chuckle, or might make you pity me, but that still doesn't affect your game and your fun with it.

Remember--- players won't be able to build their fortress as impenetrable defense with a simple moat after the siege arc is done. Because goblin and other attackers will be able to get across moats and ascend walls. Heck, they may even be able to disarm traps, so after the seige arc, we might all experience FUN after year 4 because there is just no way to defend your dwarves anymore. We won't know until we get there, but all the "easier" ways of defense will no longer work.

If you really cared about how other players play DF, you'd be for getting this change to channelling reverted--- and having Toady focus on seiging and AI pathing. Not arguing for everyone that disagrees with you to just shut up and sit down and learn to live with it because it bothers you to think they might enjoy playing DF in ways you don't play it or approve of it being played. Which is what you've said. It doesn't bother you that others might play the game differently from you, does it? Because it most definately shouldn't. No, I think it is just a bad case of fanboyitis at work. I understand. I'm a hardcore fan as well. But I understand that this change doesn't do what Toady wanted it to do--- and it has more downsides. Restoring old channeling functionality now would be better than waiting until some point in the future. What happens in the future? Everyone yells about stuck miners and ninja tree attacks, but defend the new system because it gets rid of the annoying flashing triangles, dwarves no longer charge through their death due to ramps everywhere, no longer have to be micromanaged when breaching to prevent their deaths, and no longer fall to their deaths because the ramp/tile below them got channelled away?

"Fixing" the AI is going to take longer than doing the seige arc. Seige will be very easy in comparison. Building bridges (construct floor) to get over moats and pits, building ladders to get on top or over walls, and disarming traps... those are TRIVIAL code enhancements. Heck, stone wall? Let the seigers just carve handholds. First climber is "slow" because it's making handholds... but all the others go at normal climb rate. And you are forever vulnerable afterward there--- until some feature is added to "fix" it again. Wood wall? Burn it. TRIVIAL. That could all be coded and tested in just an hour or two! Ask any programmer here. That isn't where the work for seiging is going to be. AI pathfinding and planning is where it will be.

[Phmcw]

Dig channel, remove ramp get your dwarf out by a stair leading outside, problem solved.
For magma the only sensible thing is fixing the ai, everything else is a workaround .

[strider_ani]

As a new player I was confused with the way the new channeling worked and I thought by definition it wasn't channeling.
Something just bugs me that I need to leave a ramp tile at the end of my hole just to let the miner out. It doesn't make sense and it just frustrates me.
Also, when listening to the talk casts, I learned that size/length/width/whatever in this game is undefinable. One square can contain a door (Presumably a bit taller than a dwarf) or a wall (Presumably a bit taller than a door) or a windmill (Presumably 3 times bigger than a wall) all on the same z - level. Realism isn't something this game should be focusing on anyway.

[Quatch]

New channeling is better: old channeling was unrealistic. Now you have to do two steps: channel, clean. You have to have a way to get your dwarves out of the hole they are digging.

[Grocer]

I'm getting trolled aren't I? Sigh.

Yes you are

Certainly seems that way.

You don't have to use them, just like you don't have to use traps.  Play the game however you want, let others do the same.

This is a facet of the discussion that's been bothering me.  There are plenty of valid arguments against the new channeling system, but there's also an undercurrent of "taking away features is inherently bad."

I didn't mean to suggest that nerfing traps or anything else would be a bad thing - I'm very much looking forward to the mechanics and sieging overhauls.  And I certainly don't expect DF to not change in fundamental ways.  I wouldn't mind if channeling were removed, provided that the problems for which it is a workaround* are resolved.  Unbalanced features should get nerfed as the game continues to develop.  Proper cave-ins should return, etc. 

The issue is that this specific change does not accomplish the stated goal while introducing and exposing other issues.  Most of those issues are presumably on the list of things to be dealt with but removing the workaround before implementing the fixes isn't so great.  Taking away features isn't inherently bad, it's always going to be relative.


*Caveat about differing views on workaround status.

[Footkerchief]

^^^ Ah, okay.  I may have just read people's statements a little too generally, then.