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

[Shades]

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.

So how is that better if have to designate twice as much.

If it's realism you want then why not have a channel designation meaning the dwarf digs down and ends up at the base of the channel (provided adjacent channels could be dug from below as well).

There is never a good reason to make more work for a player.

Besides which it was done to make it easier on the AI which it fails at as removing ramps is quick and you only have to channel one extra square to end up with the same situation. Basically this is a change that fails to achieve it's goal, doesn't add any new features and removes a feature that was previously possible. I fail to see the upside.

[Tarran]

There is never a good reason to make more work for a player.

So, Should forts be able to build themselves without any input from the player?

Should Traps be instakill? Should trees turn into charcoal by themselves? Should elves give away adamantine wafers for free?

[Shades]

There is never a good reason to make more work for a player.

So, Should forts be able to build themselves without any input from the player?

Only if you can make it build exactly how the player would like

Should Traps be instakill? Should trees turn into charcoal by themselves? Should elves give away adamantine wafers for free?

None of these actually reduce the player work load much. Designating a load of trees to cut for example is a couple of key presses and turning a load of wood into charcoal is an entry on the job management. These can all be done upfront and don't require the player getting RSI or remembering to go back later after a job is half done to finish it off.

Feel free to name a single benefit the new system channel gives, just one is fine.

[Tarran]

Feel free to name a single benefit the new system channel gives, just one is fine.

I'm neutral to the change you know, there's very little gain and very little loss of functionality for me.

I'm just kinda annoyed how much everyone is complaining about this. But that's just me.

[Shades]

I'm just kinda annoyed how much everyone is complaining about this. But that's just me.

That's fine obviously everyone is welcome to their opinion, but I'm yet to be shown any positive side of this change so I don't see why complaining is unreasonable.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If you want unquestionably positive, then yeah, there are none. There aren't any unquestionably negative ones either. The fact that some of us are perfectly fine with the change is proof of that. Even the bugs, that do, unquestionably, exist, haven't been encountered by some of us and weren't caused by the change in the first place.

For subjectively positive sides, well, there's this whole thread of me arguing with all of you, so...

As for the "fanboyitis"... frankly, and no offence meant to Toady, I couldn't care less whose opinion this was. I don't concern myself with status and standing, an idea that's good is good regardless of who had it. This time, I happen to see that the logic behind the change is sound. I've made all my statements regarding why I think this was a good way of altering our toolset. I've also made my statements regarding how I think this toolset can be further revised to better suit the needs of the rest of the community. However, it seems we're all here firmly rooted to our opinions. This discussion has gone on far enough, and won't get any further unless there's word from the one guy who has the power to change things around here.

I'll go check the tracker again to see if there are entries for the bugs that pester you so much. I'll even go so far as add them if they aren't there, for your convenience. Live long and prosper.

[Shades]

If you want unquestionably positive, then yeah, there are none. There aren't any unquestionably negative ones either. The fact that some of us are perfectly fine with the change is proof of that. Even the bugs, that do, unquestionably, exist, haven't been encountered by some of us and weren't caused by the change in the first place.

Negative: You are now unable to build certain structures.

You never mentioned any positives in your posts, even questionable ones.

Unless your counting the easy of AI attack, but as mentioned it only takes one more square of digging and some really cheap removal of up ramps to solve the AI problem. So it fails to achieve its goal at any rate.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Easier strip mining.
Faster and more accessible downward expansion. (than individual stairs, massive unsafe staircase shafts notwithstanding)
No bridges required for channels that aren't always full of something (like irrigation channels).
Safer channels in general (unless they're magma-filled).
Yes, the moat construction too.

At least three of these were already mentioned.

[zwei]

Easier strip mining.
Faster and more accessible downward expansion. (than individual stairs, massive unsafe staircase shafts notwithstanding)
No bridges required for channels that aren't always full of something (like irrigation channels).
Safer channels in general (unless they're magma-filled).
Yes, the moat construction too.

At least three of these were already mentioned.

All of this was pretty much possible with ramp designations before update...

[Sean Mirrsen]

But it never crossed my mind to use ramps as anything but level transitions, or the occasional strip mining task. It also required you to switch between levels twice every time you needed to designate something. Now it's easy-to-use and stuck on a key I can care to remember.

I still can't rightly remember which key is the upward ramp designation. Likely 'r', because it's 'ramp'.

[Shades]

Easier strip mining.
Faster and more accessible downward expansion. (than individual stairs, massive unsafe staircase shafts notwithstanding)
No bridges required for channels that aren't always full of something (like irrigation channels).

This isn't a change from how it was before so I don't see how you can claim its a positive of the change.

Safer channels in general (unless they're magma-filled).

This isn't true, unless you care to elaborate why and tell me what I have missed?
At any rate it is now impossible to channel into frozen climate aquifer without freezing your dwarf to death (not what I call safer).

Yes, the moat construction too.

What do you mean by this?

[Sean Mirrsen]

By moat construction I mean the thing you all collectively dismiss as a failure in regards to its intended effect. Meaning, the stated reason for the addition of ramps.

By safer channels, I mean that a channel filled with water or an empty channel is no longer a deathtrap for someone who accidentally falls into there during combat or due to anything that might push him there. That is, presuming it is left with ramps intact.

The change from before is four less keypresses for each designation you have to make, meaning you no longer have to Shift-> and Shift-< every time you need a channel strip dug. In some cases, eight less keypresses - when you want the channel to end in an exact spot and double-check where it ends on the surface.

Btw, I checked the Tracker. It seems most of the mentioned bugs are indeed present there, except the pathing into magma. I made a note in the "dwarf encased in ice when channeling freezing aquifer" bug about the similarity to breaching magma, but I guess a proper report is also in order.

And a final note, can you double-check that the pathing into magma is still present in .03? Because the pathing update bug seems to have been fixed, and it may have played a role in this.

[Ilmoran]

Actually it's pretty easy to designate something based on the level above:  You can start a designation on the upper level, move the cursor out to where you want the designation finished, and THEN move down a floor, press enter to finish the designation, and voila.  Exactly what you mapped out on the floor above, but its on this floor instead.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Huh. I kinda assumed it only worked on the same level that you start it. Well, live and learn, I guess. Just channelling is still easier though.

[Shades]

By moat construction I mean the thing you all collectively dismiss as a failure in regards to its intended effect. Meaning, the stated reason for the addition of ramps.

Well as it now requires you to channel a single extra square in your moat and then remove the up ramps from the moat proper then yes I'd call it a failure as it requires very little effort to get around.

By safer channels, I mean that a channel filled with water or an empty channel is no longer a deathtrap for someone who accidentally falls into there during combat or due to anything that might push him there. That is, presuming it is left with ramps intact.

This a reasonable positive and the only one anyone in this thread has mentioned that is actually the case. Not sure it outweighs the negatives but it's nice someone finally found a plus side to this change.

The change from before is four less keypresses for each designation you have to make, meaning you no longer have to Shift-> and Shift-< every time you need a channel strip dug. In some cases, eight less keypresses - when you want the channel to end in an exact spot and double-check where it ends on the surface.

You realise you designated the old style channels from above too right? I'm not sure how ending in an exact spot makes a difference there. And if you wanted to you could end a square earlier and stick a stairs or ramp in the end, don't get that option any more.