Print

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

[Felblood]

This thread is about the recent changes to the channeling designation, but it isn't just another thread to argue about whose preferred method of digging contains a less realistic set of abstractions. There are already threads for that, and I'm sure your opinion will make a valuable addition to the ongoing debate, so take it over there if you want to argue one channel type over the other.

What we're going to try here is to develop an entirely new system, that while unable to completely satisfy everyone, is adequate to most purposes, and doesn't produce a huge amount of BAW. To keep the conversation constructive and coherent, I'm going to require all posts to include some sort of actual suggestion (either a refinement to a previous proposal, or an entirely new one). This does mean you'll actually need to read the thread before you post, but it will also shut out the whiners that do nothing but complain, even though they don't have a better alternative. Posting a refinement to one suggestion does not entitle you to gripe uselessly on a different one. Make the suggestion you like better, so it will win more support in the various argument threads and polls that will doubtless fill the coming months (let's all be realistic about this).

Some reading may be helpful, but probably isn't required for what we're doing. A better searcher could probably find some good threads that I missed, but that should get you started.

Basically, we want to create a system of downward digging (or digging in general) that has most of the functionality of both the systems we've seen in action, but lacks most of their drawbacks.

Here's my initial suggestion to get the ball rolling:

To encompass the full scope of playstyles and functions that digging downward touches, we're going to need additional types of designation.

Effectively, I want to split c(h)anneling into three distinct types of designation. One for di(g)ging rampy grooves and holes, and one for digging level floored c(h)annels (though said grooves will still be unsmoothed), and one for cutting an open-topped trench from the inside (I don't have a letter for this one yet).

Both of these first two designations would be dug out from above, in the adjacent tile(digging downwards diagonally), but channeling would take longer. The trench is basically like a ramp designated from below, instead of above; there's no difference between the hole produced, only the side it gets dug from. The dwarves actually need to play this distinction out, unlike ramps which dig from either side however you designate them, as breaching a flow from within a trench is a good way to drown a miner. Blood, you might as well make the ramp designations care too, just to be consistent.

Using either designation to cut out a ceiling should have the same effect, revealing the tile below, unchanged. Because both designations are cut diagonally, there's no risk of a dwarf sawing a circle around himself, like Sylvester or Yosemite Sam, with a single tile.

Using either designation on a ramp down tile should remove that ramp from above, and using them on a ramp up tile should clear the ramp before making the appropriate tile below. This is intended to make removing ramps easier and reduce micro, as the player's plans should flow seamlessly through the interface, until it reaches the actual dwarves, who screw it all up.

Neither designation should work on tiles with trees or buildings or what have you. In fact, trench diggers should check for trees, before digging out a tile, and cancel the designation, if it's going to get them killed.

Both tiles (empty squares and ramp squares) should be able to hold a full 7/7 units of fluid, for the sake of the programmer. If it really bothers you, just tell yourself that the rampy channels are deeper than the square ones, or chant "It's just an abstraction," under your breath.

Digging and Trenching and removing ramps combined almost (but not quite, but to issues with stairs and flows) completely encompass the functions of channeling. This is deliberate, so that players who refuse to use channeling (for being too easy) can still get their fort into the shape they are looking for. This was inspired by the military fans who refuse use traps.

In summary, this suggestion is geared towards fluidity and utility for players of all styles or degrees of skill, but does make some concessions to challenge seekers in the form of an optional challenge, for the hardcore crowd.

I'm sure here are a lot of other good ideas (many of which will have a smaller number of designations to learn), what do you guys recommend.

[Rotten]

So essentially this is just di(g) downward ramp, dig downward c(h)annel, and, er, (c)ollapse ceiling? Support. If people think that channeling normal channels is too easy, don't use it! And don't inconvenience the rest of us. When I'm digging a power plant in a mature fort, goblin defense is the last thing I think about. I'm more worried that my miner is now drowning after he pathed through the ramp into the rushing water, which is unavoidable and a stupid way to lose a fort (Miner had lots of friends).

So yeah, support.

[CppThis]

I'm still relatively a DF newbie who's only played DF2010 but I've noticed a few interesting things:

-Toady says that old channels were too easy-mode for veterans and too dangerous for newbies
-Channels do, in fact, stop basically anything non-flying
-I've lost enough dorfs as it is in mining accidents and inadvertently stranding them in a pit wouldn't help matters
-It is still entirely possible to make a channel defense by digging it, then removing all of the ramps that go up your side of the channel
-...or by constructing a stairs, removing all ramps, then removing the upper part of the stairs
-It is impossible to make a small pit without leaving an unsightly lower stair, even though said stair is useless
-New channeling doesn't keep your dorfs safe when it comes to breaking open lakes and magma since they land in it

So summing it all up the problem (at least from Toady's perspective) is the benefits of the new system outweigh the old, but there are a few critical tasks do not work well with the new way.  This is why I suggested in the other thread that old channeling should come back as a Constructions option, that costs one unit of stone (call it scaffolding for digging the pit and getting out again) plus dwarves deconstructing a stairway sit between z-levels and path out on either level (to help newbies such as myself, for whom angry trapped-dwarf spirits roam the halls...).  I think that this would satisfy just about everyone.

[Felblood]

So essentially this is just di(g) downward ramp, dig downward c(h)annel, and, er, (c)ollapse ceiling? Support. If people think that channeling normal channels is too easy, don't use it! And don't inconvenience the rest of us. When I'm digging a power plant in a mature fort, goblin defense is the last thing I think about. I'm more worried that my miner is now drowning after he pathed through the ramp into the rushing water, which is unavoidable and a stupid way to lose a fort (Miner had lots of friends).

So yeah, support.

This thread is sort of intended to avoid all the "I support this" blather, that fill so much space with anecdotes with no statistical value. Try to keep those sort of comments in the polls and focus on actual ideas.

Dig Tren(c)h? Collapse Ceiling sounds like something you do with a room that's already dug, and I wouldn't think you could to cut a hole in a ceiling above you, without a ladder or something. When you dig a trench you just cut away from the top down, so it isn't an issue. If there's a huge demand for the ability to trench out corridors, I wouldn't fight it, but it doesn't seem to add new functionality, the way being able to selectively dig channels from above or below does.

I'm still relatively a DF newbie who's only played DF2010 but I've noticed a few interesting things:

-Toady says that old channels were too easy-mode for veterans and too dangerous for newbies
-Channels do, in fact, stop basically anything non-flying
-I've lost enough dorfs as it is in mining accidents and inadvertently stranding them in a pit wouldn't help matters
-It is still entirely possible to make a channel defense by digging it, then removing all of the ramps that go up your side of the channel
-...or by constructing a stairs, removing all ramps, then removing the upper part of the stairs
-It is impossible to make a small pit without leaving an unsightly lower stair, even though said stair is useless
-New channeling doesn't keep your dorfs safe when it comes to breaking open lakes and magma since they land in it

So summing it all up the problem (at least from Toady's perspective) is the benefits of the new system outweigh the old, but there are a few critical tasks do not work well with the new way.  This is why I suggested in the other thread that old channeling should come back as a Constructions option, that costs one unit of stone (call it scaffolding for digging the pit and getting out again) plus dwarves deconstructing a stairway sit between z-levels and path out on either level (to help newbies such as myself, for whom angry trapped-dwarf spirits roam the halls...).  I think that this would satisfy just about everyone.

Instead of requiring a new unit of stone for each section, I would just make him carry it around with him, as a stepping stone/scaffold, since he doesn't leave any stone constructions behind. Once tools are a little bit deeper, we can make them use a proper ladder. Could you clarify how that works for flow breaching? It doesn't sound like you're really advanced enough to have a feel for irrigation, but maybe you had a thought that just doesn't come through in your post.

[CppThis]

I know enough about irrigation to feed my farms off a murky pool, which admittedly isn't very much.  The only reason I suggest a stone requirement is to satisfy those who think there should be a bit more of a cost associated with pits as defense (a group which supposedly includes the developer).  Mechanically a 'constructed pit' would work the same as an oldschool channel, I just don't think the designation system is capable of doing anything that requires resources so it would be easier to hack in designation-as-construction than construction-as-designation.

[darkflagrance]

I know enough about irrigation to feed my farms off a murky pool, which admittedly isn't very much.  The only reason I suggest a stone requirement is to satisfy those who think there should be a bit more of a cost associated with pits as defense (a group which supposedly includes the developer).  Mechanically a 'constructed pit' would work the same as an oldschool channel, I just don't think the designation system is capable of doing anything that requires resources so it would be easier to hack in designation-as-construction than construction-as-designation.

Oppose stone requirement and a channel becoming a construction on the grounds that the cost of iterating the stone would cost fps. But this can be solved by having the stone vanish forever after completion. Resulting channel should not be capable of becoming unbuilt.

However, the cost does not make logical sense anyway. Result would be that theoretically a fort running under a surface-only challenge would not be able to dig channels. Furthermore, what difference does it make in which menu the channel is?

[CppThis]

Oppose stone requirement and a channel becoming a construction on the grounds that the cost of iterating the stone would cost fps. But this can be solved by having the stone vanish forever after completion. Resulting channel should not be capable of becoming unbuilt.

Right, I'm saying it should be identical to an old channel, only it eats up a unit of stone to satisfy those who want pit defense to not be quite so ezmode.  Toady has been quoted in IRC saying this is why he made the change in the first place.  This would be in addition to new channels, not in place of them, so your surface-fort thing would not be affected (relative to .31 rules anyway).

Furthermore, what difference does it make in which menu the channel is?

Build menu clearly has a natural submenu flow (placement->materials->build) and designate seems to just be one flat menu (click n drag), so I really don't think designate could automagically ask what stones you want to use at the proper time.  I'm trying to craft this in terms of something Toady could knock together in an hour or so and not waste a lot of time over more pressing issues.  Owing to the nature of the change I don't think he would go for something that isn't really easy.