Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dakk]

Wall o' text

Isn't that why it should be a init option on the first place? If you want an extra challenge, turn it on, if not, turn it off. Realistic cave-ins would be a plus to the game for me, it'd be fun to make a megaproject with it turned on.

[SmileyMan]

I still chuckle at how carefully I built 7x7 rooms when the 3d version first came out, for about a year before I discovered it wasn't necessary.

In theory, for a stable system, you only need to to the calculation when the structure changes, which isn't nearly as often as you might think.

[Chrispy]

Firstly, about the lag issue, well, cave-ins don't necessarily happen right when you dig a cave, they might happen weeks or months later.  So the code  that tests for stresses and buckling might only have to execute 3 or 4 times a year, randomly.  You could also factor in a heat-change that would permanently 'shock' a system, and would act as a trigger for localized checks.  Make it so it doesn't have to redo a check in an unchanged sector and you're golden. 

The delayed situation would also allow an interesting choice.

* Chrispy says "There was a battle in shaft 19, and the supports were shattered!  She's mighty unstable right now, so I need a few brave dwarves to follow along so we can bolster up those walls for the whole section goes down!"

Or you know, just wait and let it collapse itself.

* Chrispy screams as the magma burns...

It would make sense to me that for any kind of mega construction, if you started to work with blocks instead of stone, you'd probably be able to make something that was a bit less... foundationally orientated.  Bars of course would be stronger still.  Maybe with just constructed rock, it would be impossible to build downwards or out to the side?

Also, what kind of cave-in system would be able to accommodate constructions that looked like a 3 or 4 legged stool?  Or maybe a stalactite?  What would it do in the case of an inverted cone that was resting on it's tip?  Would that bottom block blow out, or would it just be the worlds craziest hairpin-balanced thingamabob?

As an argument for a 'different' kind of cave in system, would be something made around fault lines, or rock slabs.  I imagine these to be lines in the rock which provide no adjacent support.  So if you build a structure off the side of a steep hill that is itself not adhered very well to the rock below, it would give way in an avalanche.  That would play hell with adventure mode tho, as you'd need to create the world 'post-collapsed/cavein'ed' for every new area, not just at embark.

[Raz]

<Me me me me me>

All your arguments only want to make me have realistic caveins more.

[Jake]

@Retro: I really don't see how having to learn a little about architecture before being able to embark on huge, complicated construction projects that don't really serve much of a purpose in-game would drive new players away. This wouldn't affect the early game that badly, though you'd probably learn a few painful lessons about when and where to include pillars, and by the time you'd made a fortress last long enough to be largely self-supporting you should have picked up a working knowledge of the mechanics.
You probably won't see as many 150z-high model hammers and the like, that's true, but the game's trending away from those anyway. Megaprojects are by and large something players embark upon when they've got the fortress ticking over and they're starting to get bored.

That said, this is one feature that will need a lot of documenting in advance, and possibly something similar to the object testing arena to let people model their new design ideas.

[Kogan Loloklam]

<Me me me me me>

All your arguments only want to make me have realistic caveins more.

Which is unfortunate, because the argument of "How do I ensure players know about this and don't need a degree to do it" is the only argument Toady is considering that is preventing it from happening. That being Retro's main position as to why it shouldn't happen, and you not providing anything effective to counter that position, and we are stuck with what we got.

I do think that the color-coded system of stresses would be pretty good though. I think anyone can use it. I'm pretty sure any examples that people can think of, put into that kind of graphics, people will instantly know what to do even with limited dwarf fortress experience. (Only the knowledge that walls and pillars can be constructed would be required.)

[Raz]

Except that reasonable solutions to the problem have already been brought up in this thread. Retro's main position as to why it shouldn't happen is that he can't build these fantasy constructions anymore, and that he can't be bothered with figuring out the potential new system, partially because it would be too complex. He also assumes it wouldn't be possible to keep the current system.

Anyway, I think a lot of problems could be solved if Toady allowed the player to view several z-levels at the same time. I guess it would allow the player to get a better view of the structure.

[Squirrelloid]

I don't want realistic cave-ins until the game allows arches and vaulting.  I can imagine those things now helping to support my ceilings that are 'too unsupported'.  Building the Hagia Sophia or similar massive open spaces should be possible with the right engineering.

Basically, "realistic" better actually mean realistic if its implemented, and the solutions for dealing with structurally supporting large open spaces need to be implemented simultaneously.

[MrWiggles]

Yea, there would have to be probably smart anchoring smarting and the ability to do supports outside of straight pillars.

I want to do flying buttresses,

[Lemunde]

It certainly would cut down on all the big open rooms I keep seeing on the map archive.  I'm all for it!

[Quatch]

In response to fantasy architecture: there is already a no cave-in's in the init, I can imagine that would stay.

I do like the suggestion above that only bars be allowed for the use in making downward stairs.

Footkerchief, is there a good thread in suggestions on this that we could move over to? I could only find http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54778.msg1177879#msg1177879.

[Misterstone]

Fancy architecture with magical weightless materials that never break or collapse, and are otherwise unaffected by stresses= BORING

Fancy architecture that is structurally stable in a system of modeled weight and stress = CHALLENGING, AWESOME, FUN, IMPRESSIVE

I don't know how Toady will implement it, but I remember a few years ago I thought features such as multiple Z levels and fluids sounded impossible too.  But he did it!

Seriously, I hope I am with the majority when I say this is a primarily sim game, not a digital Lego set.  For me this game has always been about surviving bizarre emergent problems and managing limited resources to make your little peeps prosperous and content.  Without the features that make these emergent problems and limited resources exist, it loses its interest.

Heck, even a lego set requires you to take weight and structural integrity into consideration.  The best the lego enthusiasts an hope for I think is that the no cave ins init option will remain.
 

[Retro]

Sorry about the ridiculous size of my posts; I'm addressing a lot of stuff. Shrunk all my responses. Hopefully that helps.

Retro,
I disagree with not being able to build towers without some kind of odd cables since this was not only possible, but happened quite frequently (The white tower, built in 1066, is 90 feet high. In 537 Emperor Justinian I commissioned a fairly famous building that was significantly larger than that.) The largest outdoor dwarf fortress structure I made that wasn't some kind of statue was only 5 floors tall. Even building statues, with a realistic model as long as you use the right material for your "core" (HFS Metals, for example) then the whole thing can stand up pretty easily. This does make some megaprojects harder, but also it gives each megaproject that much more value in my opinion.

But I see what you are saying, in that learning all the materials would be necessary, but would this be true if there were a simple "overlay" you could activate that explains the likeliness of collapse of your structures (similar to the display that activates when you turn to view the Depot)
Say something that makes every "supported and stable" tile green, stressed tiles (ones that if you do a lot more with it, they might risk collapse) yellow, ones that are barely stable as red. It'd be fairly simple then to see that something is unstable and at risk of collapse that way.

I think I may have expressed my point on towers a bit poorly: I believe many types would be possible (though not all fantasy styles which would be frustrating) when building on 100% solid ground, but let's say the tower is right above the fort: If you start building up over a dug-away area, there would likely be a chance of a cave-in just as if you dug out under a large structure. Unless you built in an area where there was a large number of completely undug rock with no tunnels it'd be unlikely you'd get to any serious height (20~50+z)  without collapsing said caverns. If you tried to build on the ground above your farm on the first soil layer you'd be limited by height and possibly material weight (and you'd have to learn those limits as well).

As for a display - I agree that it would be required, but again, with a 2D view of a 3D environment, trying to keep track of everything in any sort of decently large cavern would be too difficult. It'd also be very easy to miss an area of weakness. Depot lines work because they generally operate more on a flat plane than anything else, and you can tell where they're going when they change z-levels. You'd really have to scour every inch of a cavern to see it because you don't have a vertical view. A 3D view would be the only way to scout for structural weakness with any sort of ease.

It should work a bit like the model for hidrostatic pressure, I think: Not an exact scientific model, just an aproximation that's simple to understand but keeps people from doing absurd stuff, while providing alternatives to make it work.

I would have little issue with a new cave-in style so long as it would still be possible in some way to do what I like to do, and I don't believe a new system with realistic collapses would allow me that.

I see no reason why giant 100 z-level towers and even sizeable underground caverns can't still be possible with the right system, even mine. It's when an entire mountain can be supported by a single floor tile made of sand is where the need for a system is argued.

Real caverns can be surprisingly large. A lenient cave-in system that won't effect all but the most outlandish setups would still be realistic I think.

A (very) lenient system might be okay with having a massive digging/building project, but I'd still find it unpreferable personally. My setups are certainly outlandish, though I don't do things like mountain-on-a-stick.

I'm all for realistic cave-ins. As for those against it, most likely there will be a option to turn it off so it operates like it does now.

Isn't that why it should be a init option on the first place? If you want an extra challenge, turn it on, if not, turn it off. Realistic cave-ins would be a plus to the game for me, it'd be fun to make a megaproject with it turned on.

Yes. I would support the idea entirely if it was possible to have realistic mode, fantasy mode (what I'm calling the current system), and antigravity mode all at once. My argument is mostly focusing on if it's not possible to keep the current system, because I don't like the idea of realism or antigravity play. I have no issue with an extra challenge in realistic mode, but the fantasy stuff I like to build would not be challenging, it would be impossible.

In theory, for a stable system, you only need to to the calculation when the structure changes, which isn't nearly as often as you might think.

DF would have to define what a structure was. Even if you separated construction from natural, every time a miner dug out a tile and every time a mason built a wall a calculation would have to be made. You would have to actively keep track of what was weakening essentially for every square you make a designation on with any sort of big project, and I don't see that being possible for reasons I stated above in reply to Kogan.

<lots of stuff>

I think random delays for cave-ins would drive me insane and stop me playing altogether, but I like and support the idea of strength by glass < wood < loose stone < block < bar (or something like that, with natural walls falling in somewhere) - as long as there was a magically-perfect fail-proof way to construct things that wasn't adamantine; with this example I would be able to construct whatever I wanted so long as I went to the trouble of making it our of metal bars (colour / material limitations would still piss me off of course). That would make things challenging but possible, which is my big point of contention, and I'd accept it.

@Retro: I really don't see how having to learn a little about architecture before being able to embark on huge, complicated construction projects that don't really serve much of a purpose in-game would drive new players away. This wouldn't affect the early game that badly, though you'd probably learn a few painful lessons about when and where to include pillars, and by the time you'd made a fortress last long enough to be largely self-supporting you should have picked up a working knowledge of the mechanics.
You probably won't see as many 150z-high model hammers and the like, that's true, but the game's trending away from those anyway. Megaprojects are by and large something players embark upon when they've got the fortress ticking over and they're starting to get bored.

That said, this is one feature that will need a lot of documenting in advance, and possibly something similar to the object testing arena to let people model their new design ideas.

I agree that new players wouldn't be driven away, but sooner or later up the learning cliff they'd expand their scope and find that the cliff actually bends backwards and they have to cling from it with their hands while dangling over the abyss. So players would keep playing, but sooner or later everyone would need to be taught (and let's face it, teaching people how DF's fluid pressure model works is tricky enough; I don't think we fully understand it even now).

A structure modelling area would be cool, though.

Except that reasonable solutions to the problem have already been brought up in this thread. Retro's main position as to why it shouldn't happen is that he can't build these fantasy constructions anymore, and that he can't be bothered with figuring out the potential new system, partially because it would be too complex. He also assumes it wouldn't be possible to keep the current system.

Anyway, I think a lot of problems could be solved if Toady allowed the player to view several z-levels at the same time. I guess it would allow the player to get a better view of the structure.

I could certainly 'be bothered' to learn a new system, no matter how complex. However I see it being unlikely that it will be possible to build the kind of stuff I want to be able to build, making it a waste of time to do so, as I'd have no fun building boring old squares and domes and pyramids. I also would certainly enjoy having three toggles between realism/fantasy/antigravity, and I don't assume it would be impossible to do so, I would simply necessitate it being done.

I concur with your z-level point. If Toady doesn't make a 3D view when he programs in structural support, third-party visualizers would be able to display them easily, and the problem of player reliance on third-party utilities would increase dramatically I think.

In response to fantasy architecture: there is already a no cave-in's in the init, I can imagine that would stay.

As stated I do not want antigravity. I'd certainly be able to do what I want with that but I enjoy having to worry about cave-ins, so long as I am actually able to do what I want to be able to do, which realism would eliminate. Hence the need for three toggle-able options.

Fancy architecture with magical weightless materials that never break or collapse, and are otherwise unaffected by stresses= BORING

Fancy architecture that is structurally stable in a system of modeled weight and stress = CHALLENGING, AWESOME, FUN, IMPRESSIVE

I don't know how Toady will implement it, but I remember a few years ago I thought features such as multiple Z levels and fluids sounded impossible too.  But he did it!

Seriously, I hope I am with the majority when I say this is a primarily sim game, not a digital Lego set.  For me this game has always been about surviving bizarre emergent problems and managing limited resources to make your little peeps prosperous and content.  Without the features that make these emergent problems and limited resources exist, it loses its interest.

Heck, even a lego set requires you to take weight and structural integrity into consideration.  The best the lego enthusiasts an hope for I think is that the no cave ins init option will remain.

I don't think marginalizing my point because I don't play the game the same way that everyone does is fair, nor is calling me a 'lego' player. Yes, I have a very strong focus on design, but it's not as if I ignore every feature of the game outside of digging and building. For some cave-ins are another fun thing to keep track of, but it would severely detract gameplay capability from players like me, and the game wouldn't be worth playing anymore. And as mentioned multiple times now, 'no-cave-ins-at-all' is not a viable option to placate me with.

-

In general response to all, I understand that my playstyle is far from the most common style, but I don't feel my point should lose its value due to not playing 'typically'; after all, I'm still a player. Clearly many would like a realistic style, but I personally would be driven from the game if no third toggle was available. That's really all it comes down to for me. Complexity is a big issue but that's more for newer players; I don't really have an issue with it.

(I also don't look forwards to having everything I construct from this change being implemented sometime in the distant future be labelled 'too easy' and 'effortless' because I didn't do it in realism mode, but that's another matter entirely.)

ed- Almost got away with a post this long having no grammar or spelling mistakes! "That's no_ a viable option" indeed.

[Andeerz]

Dood.  Your stuff is and always will be godly-impressive regardless of any sort of realistic cave-ins that may or may not be implemented. 

That said, I'm for realistic cave-ins, but only if there's an option to keep things as they are as well.  The player should have the ultimate control over their experience in the game, and from what it sounds like to me in all the DF talks, this is the kind of game Toady wants to make.

[Belteshazzar]

Realistic cave-ins...   Let's do it...   however to cut down on the whole 'constant stress processing' problem I would probably favor the occasional earthquakes and tremors. it would allow for that lovely problem of building a city of crystal glass only to realized that you probably should have added in more buttresses and the occasional steel girder when for when the earthquakes come... and when that noble wants you to put that caged bronze colossus in his treasure vault on the 32nd floor.

Hell it would even be interesting to have battles going on as a wizard rocks you city with earthquake spells, hordes of undead soldiers gutting the survivors as the founding 7 gather around a pair of levers in the deepest of bunker carved from a living adamantine cluster. They pull the first lever... the grand statue of a dwarf grasping an upraised flagon tightens it's grip shattering the thick glass and the heady flow of clear alcohol can be scented upon the battlefeild... 

They pull the second lever... the earth trembles... there is a sound far away at first until it grows to a cacophony that can be heard into the depths of the aether.... there are no screams... there is no time... the mountain has awoken.