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]

Actually, a magic flying pick is the most undwarven thing imaginable. In Arcanum, the dwarves abandoned the steam engine because "what kind of dwarf would let a machine dig a tunnel for him?"

In my opinion, DF can benefit from including such details as proper job tools. I see nothing wrong with having to pack a few chisels and hammers for any engravers in my fort, rakes and hoes and whatnot for farmers, tongs, hammers and sharpening stones for blacksmiths. So long as the tools themselves aren't too expensive or difficult to obtain in case they're lost, and so long as the dwarves are smart enough to know how to carry them and borrow them from other workers, there will hardly be an increase in difficulty.

Right now, dwarves doing just about everything is an abstraction of the actual process involved. Even normal mining - wouldn't the dwarf then end up in the tile he's mined out? That's how dwarven physics work. But if they work that way, it doesn't mean they have to stay that way, or that it's right.

As for the bump in the channel - leave it alone, I was just providing an explanation. The channel floor can be any shape as long as it's lower than its walls. At least as long as it's rough-hewn.

And,

People wouldn't always use "Dig Smooth Tunnel" command. Just like people wouldn't use "Engrave all dug tiles". It doesn't make sense in all conditions.

That's right. But just like these fictional designations, a plain channel won't make sense in all conditions. And they would all clutter up the interface with a dozen new designations for all the different things you could mine, at the various stages of completeness. It's just not ergonomic.

Look, why are you even arguing? Unless we get a word from the force behind the development, what we say here won't matter. I've made a list, a compiled collection of points that we've accumulated in this discussion. If you think you can revise that list, go ahead.

[CppThis]

And I say there's nothing wrong with putting in the old channeling and leaving it at that... because it's easy, it's simple, and sometime in the future it will not be as "exploitable" (according to you.)

So there's no point to "balancing" digging a channel. Just revert it, so the players can have the same functionality as before.

Toady apparently said flat-out in IRC that he made the change to a) make newbies less likely to kill their dwarves and b) make it harder to make an impenetrable early-game fort via one-wide channel.  It's quoted somewhere up the thread.  Now I'm not 100% sure I agree with that either, but apparently the official position is that old-style channeling was OPed so any solution we come up with should probably take that into account.

[Felblood]

And I say there's nothing wrong with putting in the old channeling and leaving it at that... because it's easy, it's simple, and sometime in the future it will not be as "exploitable" (according to you.)

So there's no point to "balancing" digging a channel. Just revert it, so the players can have the same functionality as before.

Toady apparently said flat-out in IRC that he made the change to a) make newbies less likely to kill their dwarves and b) make it harder to make an impenetrable early-game fort via one-wide channel.  It's quoted somewhere up the thread.  Now I'm not 100% sure I agree with that either, but apparently the official position is that old-style channeling was OPed so any solution we come up with should probably take that into account.

Has anyone got a more concrete version of the official position? I'd like to know exactly what was said, and how emphatically.

The added ease and safety of multi-tile channels is nice, but the lost ease and safety of flow breaches seems to negate that. We've traded one way to kill dwarves for another.

As to the thing about ditches being an overpowered defense... No. I can't say I agree with that. Traps and walls take a little more set up, but they are considerably stronger defenses(ditches don't negate archers like a wall can). Not that it matters, since any single type of defense will completely halt all but the gravest threats. If a mere ditch can stop an army, the problem is that the army needs to be more resourceful, not that the ditch needs to be nerfed. People can still shape the earth into the same shape in a couple of seasons, so long as they aren't trying to work with fluids(and the farming changes mean everyone has a reason to move water) so how are moats less powerful? It's a little harder to learn, and it takes more micro, but if I really wanted to cheese out a county-encompassing ditch out before the first thief arrives, I still could.

If these were the goals of the change, then I'd say it's a zero-sum change, at best. I wonder if this was intended to test our reception of the new system, more than the system itself. Isn't there a whole mining arc in the que somewhere?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, I guess that's the entire point. Moats are still possible - hell, they MUST be possible. It's not a dark-age fantasy kingdom simulator without ditches and moats-o-death. The problem was that they were a little too easy to make, while being too hard to cross. One or the other needed to give, and the construction part was chosen as the low-hanging fruit.

And yes, we should really get an official word on this.

[CppThis]

From a post by G-Flex who says it was in his IRC log, regarding channels:

[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

So I guess that's the official word.  I seemed to remember hearing something about dwarves getting accidentally trapped but that might just be me channeling (hurhur) my own experiences and taking things out of context.

[Andir]

I think it's funny that something is considered a project when a second designation is added.  Because that's all it takes.  Dig channel, remove ramps... leave one.  Hell, that can be the first task making your fortress "impenetrable" in a matter of minutes if that's what someone desires.  Just dig a channel around your wagon, and start digging down.  It just adds one step... It doesn't make sense to me, but there's several things I disagree with when it comes to the design, layout, and various other things surrounding DF. /shrug

[Felblood]

From a post by G-Flex who says it was in his IRC log, regarding channels:

[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

So I guess that's the official word.  I seemed to remember hearing something about dwarves getting accidentally trapped but that might just be me channeling (hurhur) my own experiences and taking things out of context.

Does that mean that we can have old channeling back when the improved sieges arrive? New channeling doesn't seem any worse really, but I'd like to have both at the same time, in some form.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I assumed so.

Btw, even with the quote, the words are still open to interpretation. My interpretation is: "During testing, we noticed that the player could easily defend against sieges with a single channel. We decided that it could use improvement, and added ramps to normal channels for lack of a better quick fix."

Andir, you can do ANYTHING if you put your mind to it. Especially in DF. If medieval warlords could construct an entire freaking castle underground, they very likely WOULD resort to just the strategy you're describing. Ain't no better defence against catapults than having a castle that doesn't exist aboveground, but pesky infantry is pesky, so a sufficiently menacing and sufficiently wide moat (i.e. one that can't easily be bridged over or otherwise traversed) would be a great defence that also doesn't suffer, for the most part, from any sort of siege equipment.

[Lord Darkstar]

Actually, a magic flying pick is the most undwarven thing imaginable. In Arcanum, the dwarves abandoned the steam engine because "what kind of dwarf would let a machine dig a tunnel for him?"

Depends on your source of "dwarf". Norse dwarfs are great enchanters of items. They have tales of dwarves with their literally flying picks, and that's why norse dwarves would ONLY need picks. As it is magic, it can do anything all other digging tools can do, and do it safely while the owner stands back in safety. So they can drill straight down, or dig a ledge in a cliff, shape raw stone and build a small, light stone scaffold so the dwarves can then build a magical bridge big enough for humans and their giant goats to cross, but too weak to hold a giant, etc.

Are DF dwarves Tolkein dwarves? D&D dwarves? Norse dwarves? Irish? "Looking For Group" comic based? With all their mechanisms, they seem to be very steampunk oriented to me, and steampunk dwarves would use any tool that makes the job easier--- although they'd prefer something with gears and mechanisms and drill bits and fed by coal and blowing steam. Look at what players do with DF--- it's very steampunk, with irrigation chambers, drowning chambers, defensive curtains of magma, rippling spike wave trap corridors, etc. So right there, DF isn't very "dwarvenly" if we are talking D&D or Tolkien. It is much more "Final Fantasy" like than generic anglo "dwarven".

Right now, dwarves doing just about everything is an abstraction of the actual process involved. Even normal mining - wouldn't the dwarf then end up in the tile he's mined out? That's how dwarven physics work. But if they work that way, it doesn't mean they have to stay that way, or that it's right.

As for the bump in the channel - leave it alone, I was just providing an explanation. The channel floor can be any shape as long as it's lower than its walls. At least as long as it's rough-hewn.

No, I won't do that. Because you are the one arguing that leaving "ramps" is more realistic while talking about "digging is an abstraction". Those are opposites on your line of argument. There is no reason that digging a channel shouldn't stay abstracted, on the same level of as all other digging.

Having it leave a ramp of material, when no other digging does, doesn't match. Having it leave egg ramps or whatever lumps of material in a channel is the dwarves FAILING at a basic dig task. That sounds extremely "undwarvenly" to me. Much more than arms that stretch out for a full tile or magic picks powered purely by dwarven worship or dwarven miners' force of will.

When advanced digging comes along, then having all digging to be "multistage" will at least be consistant across the dig types. As it is, it just stands out as a large glaring inconsistancy, and reduces the players ability to constructively do things, thus spoiling their fun.
 

And,

People wouldn't always use "Dig Smooth Tunnel" command. Just like people wouldn't use "Engrave all dug tiles". It doesn't make sense in all conditions.

That's right. But just like these fictional designations, a plain channel won't make sense in all conditions. And they would all clutter up the interface with a dozen new designations for all the different things you could mine, at the various stages of completeness. It's just not ergonomic.

Look, why are you even arguing? Unless we get a word from the force behind the development, what we say here won't matter. I've made a list, a compiled collection of points that we've accumulated in this discussion. If you think you can revise that list, go ahead.

The interface is already cluttered. But channeling's slot is now open, since it is only a second "up ramp" command. If we can tolerate all the other clutter, we can certainly stand having a second page of designations or menu up/down to see the full list, just like with the rest of our commands in dwarf fortress. Reverting channeling and adding a "dig down ramp" isn't much more for the interface, considering everything else jammed into it. After all, it needs a "remove downward stairs/ramp" added to it (to match the "remove upward stairs/ramp" command), so Toady is going to have to "find" room on the designate menu any ways, and that means scrolling or submenues, so it has to happen anyways.

It is you that keep on these failed lines of argument in this thread, long after we settled on the possible options and resolutions.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Do you disagree with the list? On any point?

• Return the old channelling as-was - Though likely to upset the half-or-so people who like, or don't mind the new channelling, this would be the quickest "rollback" method, if it's indeed so quick in code.
• Return the old channelling as an additional designation - Requiring an unknown amount of additional time and effort, this is the "workaround to the workaround" solution, that would likely keep most of the people pleased, but would worsen the game's "patchwork" state as the core of the problem - the bugs - would be, if temporarily, overlooked. This option barely fits into "short-term" as it's uncertain how much would need to be changed to add a new designation.
  
  • Rollback once the system works could be an optional continuation of this, but very likely not in the short term as the bugs are likely numerous and adding required secondary functions is probably a sizeable task in itself. Nevertheless, this outcome could be the best for both the game and the players - serving for the versatility and adaptability of one, and for the intuitive and varied use by the others.
  • Ingame balancing can also take place instead of rollback, with ramped channels being somehow different from plain channels in the way they are constructed, thus serving the admittedly weak point about making defences and general differences in usefulness. While not a very likely outcome since finding meaningful ways of balancing is difficult, this is the other variant that would effectively leave all bases covered and everyone pleased.
• Ignore the problem altogether - You can't say it can't happen, even if we didn't yet get any major bugs continously overlooked. Keeping the system as-is without actively seeking to fix the bugs wouldn't require effort (surprise!), but wouldn't be much of a popular move.
• Patch holes in the system - As a short-term solution, several stopgap measures could surely be taken to prevent the most obvious bugs from surfacing. Without adding functionality like removing ramps from above, however, this wouldn't sit too well with the 44.4% (as of this post) people who like their channels clean. While not being the bestest solution by far, this could nevertheless still be implemented in a reasonably short timeframe, and whether or not it's actually worthwhile depends on how difficult option 2 is to carry out.

Propose your alterations then.

[Shades]

This option barely fits into "short-term" as it's uncertain how much would need to be changed to add a new designation.

This bit. There is no way adding a new designation is not short-term. I would be shocked if it was more than a handful of lines of code and half an hour to work out where they should go. But that is nit-picky and the only real disagreement I have with that list as a whole.

Well If you ignore the fact you fleshed out only one option. Balancing could easily apply to any of the options, and Rollback for the first two.

[Sean Mirrsen]

I can't just say it's going to be a quick fix since I don't know whether or not it's a quick fix. I guess the "barely fits" is a bit too strong here. I'll rephrase. Also, do we have a precedent for a new designation being added mid-bugfix? I can't remember any at the moment.

Balancing might not work with the first or third/fourth options, since there'd be essentially nothing to balance against. There'd be no other channel variant, and doing anything else would fall under the second option. Of course, you could balance it against the other constructions, but that would be even harder than against another way of channelling.

Rollback for the first? To what? The first will already "roll back" to the original state. I guess there could still be an option, that the new channels will get worked on while the old channels take their place until they're ready... yeah, that could happen.

So, we make the list look like this:

• Return the old channelling as-was - Though likely to upset the half-or-so people who like, or don't mind the new channelling, this would be the quickest "rollback" method, if it's indeed so quick in code.
  • Ninja Rollback could happen if the new channelling is being worked on while we contend ourselves with the plain channels. The only difference between this and option 2-1 is that we don't get to use the new channels while they're being fixed.
• Return the old channelling as an additional designation - Requiring an unknown amount of additional time and effort, this is the "workaround to the workaround" solution, that would likely keep most of the people pleased, but would worsen the game's "patchwork" state as the core of the problem - the bugs - would be, if temporarily, overlooked. This option might not fit into "short-term" as it's uncertain how much would need to be changed to add a new designation.
  
  • Rollback once the system works could be an optional continuation of this, but very likely not in the short term as the bugs are likely numerous and adding required secondary functions is probably a sizeable task in itself. Nevertheless, this outcome could be the best for both the game and the players - serving for the versatility and adaptability of one, and for the intuitive and varied use by the others.
  • Ingame balancing can also take place instead of rollback, with ramped channels being somehow different from plain channels in the way they are constructed, thus serving the admittedly weak point about making defences and general differences in usefulness. While not a very likely outcome since finding meaningful ways of balancing is difficult, this is the other variant that would effectively leave all bases covered and everyone pleased.
• Ignore the problem altogether - You can't say it can't happen, even if we didn't yet get any major bugs continously overlooked. Keeping the system as-is without actively seeking to fix the bugs wouldn't require effort (surprise!), but wouldn't be much of a popular move. (This means, of course, the short-term solution, or the lack of one. I don't doubt that this will eventually be fixed somehow, but this list concerns only the immediate future.)
• Patch holes in the system - As a short-term solution, several stopgap measures could surely be taken to prevent the most obvious bugs from surfacing. Without adding functionality like removing ramps from above, however, this wouldn't sit too well with the 44.4% (as of the original post, or 43.5% as of now) people who like their channels clean. While not being the bestest solution by far, this could nevertheless still be implemented in a reasonably short timeframe, and whether or not it's actually worthwhile depends on how difficult option 2 is to carry out.

Better now?

edit: typos.

[Another]

...
Are DF dwarves Tolkein dwarves? D&D dwarves? Norse dwarves? Irish? "Looking For Group" comic based? With all their mechanisms, they seem to be very steampunk oriented to me, and steampunk dwarves would use any tool that makes the job easier--- although they'd prefer something with gears and mechanisms and drill bits and fed by coal and blowing steam. Look at what players do with DF--- it's very steampunk, with irrigation chambers, drowning chambers, defensive curtains of magma, rippling spike wave trap corridors, etc. So right there, DF isn't very "dwarvenly" if we are talking D&D or Tolkien. It is much more "Final Fantasy" like than generic anglo "dwarven".
...

Sorry for continuing this offtopic but I personally find DF dwarves to be mostly identical to Discworld dwarves. Especially their ☼Dwarven bread☼. One of the recipes is finely minced dwarven rum and cat tallow with coverings of mud, vomit and blood of multiple sentient species.

Current dwarven digging techniques on the other hand remind me of some different dwarves:"they'd dug out a mountain and if the stone wouldn't hold they'd just slap a spell on it".

[darkflagrance]

^Clearly dwarf fortress Dwarves are the product of Toady's mind, no more, no less. While we can argue about their relationship to dwarves of other established canons, however Dwarves act in 31.04 will be the canon until the next revision (except, perhaps, for unbreaded females).

[Shades]

Sorry for continuing this offtopic but I personally find DF dwarves to be mostly identical to Discworld dwarves.

Discworld dwarves have males and females being essentially identical though, this is clearly not the case in DF. I think he was influenced by Discworld as much as Tolkein or D&D though.