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

[Lord Darkstar]

I don't understand this problem. If you design something where you channel your dwarves to death, that is your fault. Do not blame a design change.

Except the new system kills many more dwarves than the old. In early fortresses, this can be quite bad. In a well developed fortress, this can be less of a game affecting issue, but it can still be a great bother to some players.

If you dislike blinking triangles then just don't look at them. I mean, I've read the first few pages and a few people said (paraphrased), "If you don't like instatrenching then just don't do it".

You do realize you are talking to the player base that dumps all its unwanted rocks into an atom smasher, just to make all that rock "go away", rather than have 1 tile full of all that rock sitting somewhere in there fortress, right?

Let's look at the facts:
Old channeling is from ABOVE, which lets you make holes that are mysterious in how a dwarf can remove a large section of rock without leaving a gradient. Ramping designated from the z-level below accomplished the same thing with z-level flipping but with a gradient that, apparently, looks stupid.

New channeling is from ABOVE, but results in ramps which people think look stupid. Ramping designated from the z-level below accomplishes the same thing and still looks stupid.

This is all about it looking stupid and people deciding to grief because of some odd sleight against their idea of aesthetics. The "new" system is called stupid and ugly and, a few times, illogical. The fact is, it is perfectly logical. In order for your miner to dig out a full tile of rock from above, they would need to make a way to go into the hole and then dig out the rest. This would result in a gradient called a ramp. It is perfectly logical and, actually, quite realistic. Those of you digging up archaic methods to somehow create a channel without having gradated sides, you are silly people. With stubby arms and a pick, it's a marvel dwarves can dig holes big enough for elves to even walk in, let alone channeling a hole big enough to dump the damn treehuggers in without their heads sticking out. If you don't like reality, then please give me a list of your names and I'll just do a quick search to see how many of you have mentioned "realism" and how you want more of it in DF.

So you think all digs should end up with the dwarf in the hole dug? Fine, let's get Toady to make that change. Then digging will be consistant. It will also give us more "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!", as more dwarves will die due to where they end their dig, but the players will adjust. It is consistant and "more logical"--- if all digging worked like that. After all, how is it that the dwarves are reaching those far bits of a tile without being in it? You can dig a complete stairs from above and never enter the tile. What makes digging a "pit" from above any different from digging a pit with a ladder (a few hand and toe holes) in the wall from above WITHOUT ENTERING THE SQUARE? Nothing. As long as we have consistant behavior, we will have the majority of the player base defending it. Right now, it is split because we have split behavior on digging.

This is senseless bickering and the vote is highly biased.

Not really. The vote clearly shows the majority of players that have an opinion, want the old way back. Most are happy to add in the down ramps from same level as well.

I really don't give a crap either way, but the ONLY option supporting new channeling comes off as juvenile while the one for neutral parties comes off as being bastardish. It seems that the only two options are, "I like old channels but hate ramps" and "I like old channels AND ramps!" Joy. Can't we just deal with the game as it is? I trust Toady to do what he thinks is right with his own damn product. We don't have a right to demand he change something because it "inconveniences" us in some way that doesn't seem to make complete sense.

I have no clue who said this, but I have read several posts referencing something like it... I don't think anyone on these forums has the right to point out that Toady receives money from the fanbase, seeing as we all receive a free game from him, some input in the development, and regular updates on what's going on. If you think that threatening to withdraw donations is a cool move in any sense because of some goddess damned ramps or channels or whatever this argument is even about anymore, then you... I have no words for you, only a seething range with images of dwarves and dwarves. The dwarves are striking the dwarves. The dwarves triumphantly shout, "BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!" I will crush you under a bridge. [/rage]

Toady makes his living by meeting his customers needs (their need for fun in playing DF). That is: Toady is SELLING us the product called Dwarf Fortress. If we don't like it, we stop giving him our money. If that happens, he stops being able to feed Scamps and himself, and won't be able to pay his bills. In other words, pleasing the customers of DF is precisely what he has to do. If he makes too many customers unhappy with his changes to it, he will no longer be able to make a living creating DF, and then he will stop doing DF and go find another way to make a living. No one on this forum wants that to happen. We all enjoy DF and are amazed at Toady and his brother have achieved. But it is the facts of the situation. He must keep his customer base happy to continue what he loves--- making DF.

This change to channelling was a very bad change. He should return channelling to its old functionality, and give us down ramp designation from same level (new style channelling). That is win-win all around, and it won't take him very long to do it. It will be somewhere between 10 minutes and at worst a day, but I bet less than 90 minutes, based on my own experience with coding (he has the old code calls, he has the new style in code already, he just needs to make a couple of changes to the code itself, and adjust his menus. Again, win-win for everyone. Heck, the time Toady spent reading through ONE of these "new channeling sucks/is bug" or "old versus new channelling bug" threads is longer than it would take to make the change to give us back old channelling AND add in a new designation for doing down ramps from same level!

Nobles make unreasonable demands, channeling now leaves logical ramps... Oh, I get what this is about... You're all just mad because you can't crush the ramps under bridges for constantly mandating the production of clownite backscratchers when you haven't even found any clownite yet. Maybe people will now learn the fine art of building serviceways and floodgating/dooring/walling off the dangerous Fun bits. Hell, my 6 z deep 10x10 cistern has a bigass drain lever just in case I need to add pipes off of it going somewhere. That's right, I can drain 600 squares of 7/7 deep water... directly into the lower cavern. Just because I feel like it. I also have stairways going alllllll the way down to the bottom level, just in case I want to widen the bottom for some crazy reason (mostly so I can make a secondary cistern using the Fun of water pressure to fill it). Channeling as it is now just needs some forethought if you want rampless channels. In the case of piping magma, you'll just either have to deal with those flashing triangles or building a screw pump. Honestly, I don't think this is THAT big of a deal.

It obviously is to you, based on the length of your rant.

And I agree--- I believe you should always have ways to access your works. You never know when you want to expand or do something else with the your work. That is a very dwarven attitude.

[Silverionmox]

Can the old channel camp please acknowledge that digging out a complete square from the edge breaks believability? Then the new channel camp can acknowledge that the new channelling breaks functionality, the old channels can be put back in as a stopgap measure, and this thread can get some rest.

[Felblood]

Can the old channel camp please acknowledge that digging out a complete square from the edge breaks believability? Then the new channel camp can acknowledge that the new channelling breaks functionality, the old channels can be put back in as a stopgap measure, and this thread can get some rest.

(Emphasis mine)

That's never going to happen, and it doesn't have to for this to be resolved peacefully.

Without any indicator of how large a tile actually is, you can't simply declare that digging a channel one square deep is ridiculous. If they were cutting a smoothed channel, the argument might hold some weight, but as the channels are left rough it's just a matter of people getting hung up on the square grid.

To be perfectly realistic, a tile cut from above might need to leave (say) half a tile of earth in the bottom, so you're not cutting away an entire hallway from above. This would allow people to route fluids without dragging flack from the nit-pickers, but making that not screw up pathing and map memory usage would be a major project with no real game-play change. This is a tile based game and people need to accept that there is some abstraction that comes with the territory.

People manage to cut the ends out of irrigation ditches all the time without drowning themselves, and these new changes mean that a dwarf can't do that safely. This is a very serious issue in light of the recent changes to underground farming, and is an unnecessary hindrance to new players.

Now, new channeling is handy for digging swimming ponds, and it's nice to have it. It's existence doesn't offend me in any way, and I'm willing to accept it existing alongside normal channeling. However, if I have to make a public statement to the effect that old channeling was deeply flawed to make that compromise happen, I'll fight to the last man against it.

Can't we all get along, without having to abandon our beliefs?

[Andir]

Can the old channel camp please acknowledge that digging out a complete square from the edge breaks believability?

It's as believable as carrying an entire tile worth of stone in one attempt, then taking said stone, turning it into a block and storing it in a bin along with multiple other blocks created the same way... then taking said block back out of this bin and building a wall from just one that closes off an entire tile or using the same block along with two more such blocks and building a trading depot that covers 16 tiles, a bridge, a road, or a measly floor which can be deconstructed and build into a solid wall without adding any more resources.

There are certain "unbelievables" we can live with.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Those are called Acceptable Breaks From Reality. I'll save a few hours of your time by not including a link. It should be, however, noted that it works both ways. Digging out an arbitrarily-sized hole in the ground while standing on its edge isn't realistic in the slightest, but this is a game and we can see the reason behind the simplified process. Yet, when the notion comes up that it makes sense that you can dig a waterway that you can walk across while it's dry, you can also see a reason why digging out a waterway you can't walk across should be harder.

In real-life terms, this is a matter of cunning and engineering expertise, especially with arbitrarily-sized holes and waterways, but unless you want specialised mining equipment cluttering up your game, it should be abstracted away as an acceptable break from reality. But it still has to be harder somehow, since it's obviously more useful than the walkable kind, so you can abstract away the extra engineering effort by simply allowing walkable waterways to be turned into sheer cliffs of indeterminate (if small) height by adding another designation on top of the initial one. However realistic or unrealistic it is, this is a game.

In game terms, a ramped channel is Level 1. You upgrade it to Level 2 by removing the ramps. This has several undesired side-effects which can be handled separately, but there's no need to go all-out and demand that your dwarves be able to dig out Level 2 channels from the get-go. Unless you can accept the need to have Level 2 equipment or Level 2 miners as a requirement, Level 2 channels will require you to upgrade from Level 1 ones. (It really sounds silly when put into game terms, but that's essentially how it works for a game. If you want a better something, you have to do something extra, or have something better - this is the basis of just about any game there is, including Real Life itself in many cases.)

[Shades]

Can the old channel camp please acknowledge that digging out a complete square from the edge breaks believability? Then the new channel camp can acknowledge that the new channelling breaks functionality, the old channels can be put back in as a stopgap measure, and this thread can get some rest.

If you want realism then shouldn't a new ramp appear else where to represent the half tile of stone you've removed building this down ramp?

There is not point taking one thing and going 'oh but this is realistic' when your ignoring so much else.

Further more have you not seen a grave yard? those coffins are buried in 6 foot pits with shear sides.

[Tarran]

Further more have you not seen a grave yard? those coffins are buried in 6 foot pits with shear sides.

Pickaxes are not Shovels.

[Shades]

Further more have you not seen a grave yard? those coffins are buried in 6 foot pits with shear sides.

Pickaxes are not Shovels.

I'd like to see you dig anything useful with just a pickaxe if you want that argument to stand

Besides these guys can forge metal and cook stew with their bare hands and no tools. You think a little thing like lacking a shovel will stop em?

[Andir]

Those are called Acceptable Breaks From Reality. I'll save a few hours of your time by not including a link. It should be, however, noted that it works both ways. Digging out an arbitrarily-sized hole in the ground while standing on its edge isn't realistic in the slightest, but this is a game and we can see the reason behind the simplified process. Yet, when the notion comes up that it makes sense that you can dig a waterway that you can walk across while it's dry, you can also see a reason why digging out a waterway you can't walk across should be harder.

In real-life terms, this is a matter of cunning and engineering expertise, especially with arbitrarily-sized holes and waterways, but unless you want specialised mining equipment cluttering up your game, it should be abstracted away as an acceptable break from reality. But it still has to be harder somehow, since it's obviously more useful than the walkable kind, so you can abstract away the extra engineering effort by simply allowing walkable waterways to be turned into sheer cliffs of indeterminate (if small) height by adding another designation on top of the initial one. However realistic or unrealistic it is, this is a game.

In game terms, a ramped channel is Level 1. You upgrade it to Level 2 by removing the ramps. This has several undesired side-effects which can be handled separately, but there's no need to go all-out and demand that your dwarves be able to dig out Level 2 channels from the get-go. Unless you can accept the need to have Level 2 equipment or Level 2 miners as a requirement, Level 2 channels will require you to upgrade from Level 1 ones. (It really sounds silly when put into game terms, but that's essentially how it works for a game. If you want a better something, you have to do something extra, or have something better - this is the basis of just about any game there is, including Real Life itself in many cases.)

I love how you singlehandedly dismissed reality as tedious in the first and second paragraph.... then you brought it back in the third and argued it was required to preserve the idea that somehow creating the ramp was 50% of the workload and removing the ramp is the last half.  Then continued stating that it should therefore be included while ignoring the magic vanishing ramps from the removal of surrounding land.

Are you arguing just to argue?

[Zombie]

<stuff>

I don't believe I have shown anyone disrespect and I don't believe that reading 20 pages of (mostly) the same arguments is really necessary. Large sections of my post you have taken verbatim were intended as sarcasm and I truly do apologize if I came off as offensive, but bickering like this is pointless. When I was saying things are "stupid", I wasn't intending to refer to individual people, more the arguments that were posed and the way they were posed. Personally, I think both systems have their problems and both would need work to make everyone happy. On one hand we have a break from realism, on the other we have realism being annoying. It's really that simple of an argument. I think a lot of people in here were just arguing to argue because, let's face it, this DOES complicate things.

I truly don't understand how you thought I was talking down to anyone as I am very green when it comes to megaconstructions. I put accessways in any pipelines I dig, however, and clear them out before anything. I am a very methodical builder and that's just how I am. I did recently start on my first waterfall project, however! I find it sort of incredulous how you would think I'm trying to "impress" anyone on this forum. That would be silly as it seems like most people have a lot of experience with doing crazy things, while I like to tend to a mellow fortress. My "derisive tirade" about the aesthetics of the new system were satirical (at best) summations of the arguments I had read in the first six or so pages meant to bring about the "shattering new world insight" that many of these arguments are juvenile and minuscule at best. The best argument, by far, against the new system is it being somewhat more dangerous for dwarves. Most of the others are simply dismissible as aesthetic arguments. If we paid much attention to aesthetic arguments around here then DF would already have full graphic support, I think.

If I didn't ritualistically build all of my constructions with serviceways and pre-planned drains, then I think I'd be just as peeved about this as it would require me to rethink my tried-and-true ways of doing things. I'm not peeved about this at all because, honestly, I see an increase in efficiency among my dwarves. I frequently enjoy building, as some of you may know, 10x10 cisterns to store water for various purposes. Not having to layer-channel (lay it out in strips or a horseshoe pattern) is a BIG improvement for me and I honestly think people should acknowledge this as a bonus. I was happy I could just mass-designate a z-level and focus on something else while my miners got to work, instead of having to micromanage 3 z-levels of channeling. I think this is just as valid a micromanaging concern as those of you who hate to have to designate those ramps for removal.

Also, Pickled Tink, I am a girl. It is fairly obvious seeing as there's a line of text under my avatar that says "Goddess of Gaming". Just thought I'd point that out. You sort of didn't pay attention to that anymore than I paid attention to dwarves freezing in aquifers. Of course, I think dwarven popsicles are hilarious. Of course, I think this was addressed above in the "danger to dwarves increased" category. Either way, I hope you don't think I'm some sort of arrogant snob. I really just got peeved on hearing that some people were being so base as to threaten monetary penalties if they didn't get their way.

On that note, thank you and Darkstar for reading my huge post! Really, thanks. I do appreciate your input and tearing it apart. It's people like you that (non-sarcastically) contribute the most to discussions by making sure points were not glossed over and for, occasionally, pointing out subconscious acts (intended or non) acts of snobbery.

Now, Darkstar, I do realize that bit about atom smashing rocks. It's a valid point you have, but I don't think it should matter much. It's a negligible thing and doesn't truly impact gameplay in a negative way. What impacts gameplay is your legendary miner dying for a death related to new channels. I agree there, but I don't think the bickering is very justified.

You neglected to address this, though, which was my justification on why I think the polls, and thus the thread about them, are biased:

I really don't give a crap either way, but the ONLY option supporting new channeling comes off as juvenile while the one for neutral parties comes off as being bastardish. It seems that the only two options are, "I like old channels but hate ramps" and "I like old channels AND ramps!" Joy.

I still think the pro-new option comes off as juvenile. The third option is sufficiently neutral, however, that I can just ignore that. I think the first option coming off as juvenile makes a difference as most may be hesitant to disparage the old way things worked. Also, you cannot dismiss nonvoters as people "without opinions". We are not the only ones on this forum and just because people may not care to get involved does not mean they do not have an opinion. There is also the possibility that nonvoters may be just as happy with the new system as the old and feel that it doesn't change how they play enough to consider it a fault or an improvement. Polls are inherently biased as they assume that everyone who is important necessarily votes, which is not the fact. All of us are important as we all contribute in some way. Excluding people who don't vote isn't the way to go about attempting to affect a change. But this isn't very important, honestly, as my main concern is that the bias inherent in the polls may (but not necessarily is) affecting the discussion, which then affects the polls even more.

I agree that we need consistent behaviour. I really do. I think that miners should carry around ropes or grappling hooks or something so they can kind of lower themselves enough to do their job, like building upward stairs from above. I don't, honestly, find much issue with making a hole just straight down, but I can see where the realism camp is coming from and it is sort of odd to see people who support stringent realism saying that realism doesn't matter in this case. I think the channel command is redundant now, but digging ramps from above is nice. Perhaps concatenating both into one (r)amp command where you can specify an (u)pward ramp or a (d)ownward ramp before designating. A command to remove ramps from above could be implemented then, and a dwarf with the proper equipment (ropes or something) could perform the duty. Or just any dwarf. It's not too much micromanagement and, if you really want to streamline it, just have the c(h)annel command automatically add remove ramps from above jobs while the channel is dug and ramps still exist in the designation area. Then it's not micromanaging, it's "set it and forget it". We could even have a toggle on the command to forbid dug tiles unless they have a ramp in them, so dwarves do not get stuck. When the designation is complete, all the dug tiles become unforbidden and the designation goes away.

I don't think this is a truly big problem, but I do think some of the craziness in here is a problem. Dwarf Fortress is not a product being sold. Last I checked it was free and you are not asked to donate at any point. There's a quiet, unassuming button for people who decide to click it of their own accord, but it is not a compulsory thing. All we are, really, asked to do is to report bugs. We are even warned that DF is in alpha! You shouldn't donate because you are "buying" DF. That isn't it at all. There is no license, there is no actual ownership for you. Why you donate is because you want Toady to continue making this awesome thing, or because you want a tax writeoff, or because you like giving away money, or because you like Toady, or for any other number of reasons. You don't threaten to not donate because of a small thing like this, was my point. Toady could have decided to keep his dayjob and not do DF full time, but he wanted to see if it would work. It did. He didn't do DF full time, from my understanding, because he wants boatmurders of money for it. If he did, it would be sold already and being developed by a large company that doesn't give a shit what you or I think. Instead he gives us all a chance to be part of a unique development process for a unique game. That is why you should donate. If you think your donation entitles you to get whatever you want in the game and you think you can throw that around, then you misinterpret the meaning of "donation". Yes, if Toady stops doing DF, he probably won't get donations for it anymore. He is not, however, obligated to appease our every desires if they go against what he thinks is right for his project. He is not obligated to support mac and linux platforms. He isn't obligated to add opengl support. He's doing it because he thinks it is right for the project and for his dream, not because we're thrusting fistfuls of money at him.

Then again, what do I know? It's your choice to donate and your right to decide when, where, what, why, and if to donate. It's not right for me to say, "No! You can't make demands of Toady just because you donated!" because maybe that's your motivation. Maybe that's what made you donate in the first place. Maybe you just WANT to make demands! I think that's sort of rude and presumptuous, but you are entitled to what you believe and, either way, you get thanked for donating. I think it's just important to remember that we are all playing the same game and all of our opinions matter, no matter how silly we may think they are.

I need coffee now.

[Pickled Tink]

On one hand we have a break from realism, on the other we have realism being annoying. It's really that simple of an argument. I think a lot of people in here were just arguing to argue because, let's face it, this DOES complicate things.

It has been point pointed out how it is not a break from realism though. And given how many breaks from realism we already have, why this special case? As others have said, a quantum dump with ten thousand stone in it, or a dwarven atom smasher are both breaks from reality. Ridiculously large ones. We have Quantum cages too. Picture, if you will, a single cage with two hundred cats, a hundred cows, sixty horses, and a hundred dogs stuffed inside, with hooves, tails, and paws poking out the bars at odd angles. Now picture Urist McTamer stuffing an Elephant in there, amid the terrified howling of the already cramped cages occupants, before going back to fetch another one We have water instantly freezing when the temperature drops. We have perpetual motion machines! We can (and personally I have done) built an entire fortress atop a 1x1 stairway of soap. We can manipulate aquifers so we have a 1x1 tile generating endless water atop our reservoir. World generation occasionally leaves aqueducted rivers over cliffs. A lignite block in a steel bin, once ignited, can be dropped into the sea to vaporize it. Melting off your fat lets you swim in magma! I could go on and on here about tremendous breaks from realism.

I ask why something being a break from realism is suddenly a valid argument (And it has been shown that this isn't). Dwarves are weird.

My "derisive tirade" about the aesthetics of the new system were satirical (at best) summations of the arguments I had read in the first six or so pages meant to bring about the "shattering new world insight" that many of these arguments are juvenile and minuscule at best. The best argument, by far, against the new system is it being somewhat more dangerous for dwarves. Most of the others are simply dismissible as aesthetic arguments. If we paid much attention to aesthetic arguments around here then DF would already have full graphic support, I think.

I have the same opinion of realism arguments as you have of aesthetic arguments. In defense of aesthetics, at least I can support my own preferences with the fact that DF is a sandbox game, where you build what you want to build, governed only by practicality and your personal sense of aesthetics.

If I didn't ritualistically build all of my constructions with serviceways and pre-planned drains, then I think I'd be just as peeved about this as it would require me to rethink my tried-and-true ways of doing things. I'm not peeved about this at all because, honestly, I see an increase in efficiency among my dwarves. I frequently enjoy building, as some of you may know, 10x10 cisterns to store water for various purposes. Not having to layer-channel (lay it out in strips or a horseshoe pattern) is a BIG improvement for me and I honestly think people should acknowledge this as a bonus. I was happy I could just mass-designate a z-level and focus on something else while my miners got to work, instead of having to micromanage 3 z-levels of channeling. I think this is just as valid a micromanaging concern as those of you who hate to have to designate those ramps for removal.

You were doing it wrong. For large open spaces, designate a bunch of up ramps. Then do the same for the next floor down, and so on. As has been said, new channeling is a duplicate of dig up ramps, but from above. Another solution would be to hollow out all the floors and create a controlled collapse at the top floor to hollow it all out.

Also, Pickled Tink, I am a girl. It is fairly obvious seeing as there's a line of text under my avatar that says "Goddess of Gaming". Just thought I'd point that out. You sort of didn't pay attention to that anymore than I paid attention to dwarves freezing in aquifers.

The saying "There are no girls on the internet." is a sensible one in my opinion. I stick to it until proven otherwise

I really just got peeved on hearing that some people were being so base as to threaten monetary penalties if they didn't get their way.

No one has threatened that. It has just been pointed out that pissing off your player base is a good way to drive them away, and by extension the source of donations.

On that note, thank you and Darkstar for reading my huge post! Really, thanks. I do appreciate your input and tearing it apart. It's people like you that (non-sarcastically) contribute the most to discussions by making sure points were not glossed over and for, occasionally, pointing out subconscious acts (intended or non) acts of snobbery.

It's our job

I agree that we need consistent behaviour. I really do. I think that miners should carry around ropes or grappling hooks or something so they can kind of lower themselves enough to do their job, like building upward stairs from above.

Digging stairs from, above creates the means of getting into the hole.

I don't, honestly, find much issue with making a hole just straight down, but I can see where the realism camp is coming from and it is sort of odd to see people who support stringent realism saying that realism doesn't matter in this case.

It has been pointed out how it is not a violation of realism. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the realism argument is already on shaky ground given the absurdity permitted already.

I think the channel command is redundant now, but digging ramps from above is nice. Perhaps concatenating both into one (r)amp command where you can specify an (u)pward ramp or a (d)ownward ramp before designating. A command to remove ramps from above could be implemented then, and a dwarf with the proper equipment (ropes or something) could perform the duty. Or just any dwarf. It's not too much micromanagement and, if you really want to streamline it, just have the c(h)annel command automatically add remove ramps from above jobs while the channel is dug and ramps still exist in the designation area. Then it's not micromanaging, it's "set it and forget it". We could even have a toggle on the command to forbid dug tiles unless they have a ramp in them, so dwarves do not get stuck. When the designation is complete, all the dug tiles become unforbidden and the designation goes away.

This seems like an absurd amount of work for Toady when he could simply revert and add a dig down ramps designation instead. Also, it would create more load in game.

As for your explanation for your prior tone, well, fair enough. No hard feelings then. I apologise for taking a chunk out of you in response.

[Ilmoran]

Zombie:  Thanks for the second post; I can honestly say I felt your first post did come off as a bit derisive, mainly for the following parts:

I don't understand this problem. If you design something where you channel your dwarves to death, that is your fault. Do not blame a design change.

Here, it sounds like your saying that people just need to learn how to use channeling when a) one of the major improvements people cite is that channeling doesn't require any forethought, just designate and go, and b) the new channeling, in some situations, will result in a dead dwarf no matter what you do.

Those of you digging up archaic methods to somehow create a channel without having gradated sides, you are silly people.

So, when people use the realism argument to support new channeling, other people are silly for suggesting real methods to make a channel, which can be abstracted as part of the process?

With stubby arms and a pick, it's a marvel dwarves can dig holes big enough for elves to even walk in, let alone channeling a hole big enough to dump the damn treehuggers in without their heads sticking out.[/b]

This didn't come off as derisive, I'm just making a counterpoint:  In the raws, dwarves and elves are both BODY_SIZE:60000, so they aren't THAT different size-wise.  And just as an aside here, the description for dwarves states they are fond of industry.  So why can't they find an industrious way to aid their digging?

I agree that the vote is poorly worded, but ironically, I'm in favor of restoring the old channeling functionality (which is NOT to say get rid of the functionality AND ease of designation that the new channeling provides) but didn't want to vote because I felt both options in favor of only 1 type of channeling came off as childish.  Granted, the first moreso than the second.  The third, I couldn't even tell what the point of it was; calling two things "the best" didn't make sense to me and didn't suggest to me "give us both".

Nobles make unreasonable demands, channeling now leaves logical ramps... Oh, I get what this is about... You're all just mad because you can't crush the ramps under bridges for constantly mandating the production of clownite backscratchers when you haven't even found any clownite yet.

Likening people (who want the functionality of old channels restored) to nobles is a real quick way to insult them.

Channeling as it is now just needs some forethought if you want rampless channels.

Again, this wasn't derisive, just making a comment:  No, you have to redesign your channels.  Most of the people who want clean channels probably do put a lot of forethought into the design of their fortress, and are annoyed that now they have to "ruin" their designs to fix the channels (and you can't dismiss the opinions of a group of people just because they are obsessed with the layout of their forts.  A lot of people put a lot of work into making their fortress "perfect", these are people who would leave native platinum in the wall because mining it out would mess up the design, and building fortresses "perfectly" is how they have fun.  They have every right to voice their opinion on a change that ruins the fun for them.

[Andir]

I would like to introduce a tool to all the people claiming that digging a 6 foot hole without a ramp by hand is impossible.  Like every other tool in the game (an axe can make perfect planks?  a pick can move dirt?) it is a little far fetched to force your dwarfs to create it.  (Maybe we need a "mining tools" item instead of just a pick?)  Anyway, off topic.  This tool I speak of is manually operated tool (requires just one person) and can dig out a hole without you ever stepping into it.  Like a pick, it's obvious to abstract a whole tile being dug out because it would take you forever to mine if we did that, but you can create perfectly straight walls without hand/foot holes and you can go down as far as the handles allow.

Behold, the post hole digger:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Perhaps it's hard for you to imagine someone digging out a perfectly square hole without a ramp, but I present to you (courtesy of Google Images) an assortment of holes for your viewing pleasure:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Have a nice day.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Lest you forget, until we have climbing skills in the game, the holes made that way are insurmountable. In the displayed cases, the digger can get out by himself, or at the very least, with a rope or a helping hand. 1-level unramped drops in DF are currently as good as perfectly smooth, impregnable, zero-friction walls. There is no way to get on top of them. So I think the question isn't "how to dig a square pit and remain out of it", but "how to dig a square pit that's impossible to get out of, and remain out of it".

[Silverionmox]

And the people are, of course, IN the hole. As long as they can't climb, channeling from above is a workaround, but one that's just as itching for some people as that last remaining ramp under water is for others.

I'm all for requiring a bit of extra material to remove ramps from above (which would be possible through liquids as well). For example something simple like a steel (for strength and magma-proofing) pole/bar, and a hammer, to chisel the remaining ramp away. Manipulating magma should not be trivialized.