Print

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

I would like mechanisms to break down completly random (with init)

I would like mechanisms to break down with maintaince(with init)

I will stop playing df if mechanisms can break down even with an init

I think mechanisms should break down and there should not be an init to chance it

What is a mechanism and why should I care I just want to burn elves!!!

[NW_Kohaku]

But essential things like bridges and floodgates should remain operational in any case. Making a dwarf pull the right lever in time is already hard enough. Maybe we could build multiple redundant mechanisms into those. When one jams, the next takes over.

That is what's done to make fail proof machines and computers in real life, iirc. Being able to put multiple mechanisms into everything using mechanisms seems good to me.

This requires that we would be able to trust that mechanics can actually repair the mecahnisms that fail even if they player doesn't know they have failed.  (Which means dwarves need continuous access to all mechanisms.)

Keep in mind that some of these mechanisms might be floodgates that control magma flows or worse, pressure plates that might be underwater or submerged in magma for the better part of the fort's operational time.  Virtually all repeaters require water, magma, or a dangerous creature trapped in a loop to operate.  Dwarves aren't going to be able to repair those mechanisms, and stacking redundant mechanisms only extends the shelf-life.  (Plus everything else would need some crazy Jefferies Tubes to get into...) 

Then there are the axles and gear assemblies that transfer power - unless you can start cramming extra axles into one tile, then you have to start multiplying the amount of space (and absurd amounts of wood) that these things start taking up by the number of redundant systems you have going...  And THAT isn't even considering what happens when redundant systems go out of sync because one was down during a switch, or crazy race conditions caused by having multiple redundant inputs.

[Pilsu]

Greasing might also make sense. Repeaters should not be cheap.

[NW_Kohaku]

Repeaters should not be cheap.

Why not? 

Your most basic repeater, a pendulum, is basically just a weight on the end of a long rope or bar.  Large, efficient ones can swing for very long periods of time, requiring resetting (or winding, in the case of mechanical clocks) only once every day or so.  It's just that such a thing is not possible in DF terms.  (Except metaphorically by making a goblin swing back and forth between two alternatingly open doors.)

Making a "lever" that is pushed and pulled by the waves is a fairly simple mechanical matter, and fairly represents some of the water repeaters.

[thijser]

Repeaters should not be cheap.

Why not? 

Your most basic repeater, a pendulum, is basically just a weight on the end of a long rope or bar.  Large, efficient ones can swing for very long periods of time, requiring resetting (or winding, in the case of mechanical clocks) only once every day or so.  It's just that such a thing is not possible in DF terms.  (Except metaphorically by making a goblin swing back and forth between two alternatingly open doors.)

Making a "lever" that is pushed and pulled by the waves is a fairly simple mechanical matter, and fairly represents some of the water repeaters.

Well a thing that's constantly moving (floodgate door ) on repeat does wear down quite fast.

[thijser]

added a poll

[forsaken1111]

You forgot the "I don't think this feature should be implemented at all" choice.

[Antsan]

I will stop playing df if mechanisms can break down even with an init

I guess, this should be equivalent to

I don't think this feature should be implemented at all

[forsaken1111]

But I wouldn't stop playing.

[thijser]

But I wouldn't stop playing.

I was just beeing a bit dramatic. It's really the same thing.

[aepurniet]

dwarves are almost impossible to control now, without crazy micromanagment.  adding maintenance to my 200+ traps would make them pure stupid during a seige. (not that they are all too smart to begin with).

[Shade-o]

Although by all means we should consider some more detail for mechanisms and traps.

But having them break down, especially those submerged in water, magma, or kittens would be stupid.

[Andeerz]

I don't see how maintenance would be an issue for single use mechanisms like traps that have to be reset anyway, unless they've been sitting around for centuries inactive and are made of a material that degrades, like iron or copper.  But for flood gates and crap that see repeat use, well, hell, have the mechanisms wear out in a relatively predictable, non-random fashion dependent on material and whatnot.  It would make sense.  Though I can see why people would get butt-hurt over it with the game as it is currently, I figure maintenance of mechanisms would provide yet another job for the engineer besides making mechanisms and setting traps.  I normally have my engineer having nearly nothing to do besides those things anyway.  Also, it would give an application for associated skills in adventure mode for repairing crap. Routine maintenance wouldn't be game-breaking or stupid if it's done somewhat realistically methinks.   

[Antsan]

What's up with all this talk about micromanagement? Seriously, dwarfs may be stupid but at least you don't need to babysit every last one of them and with a labor for maintenance there is no reason to do it by hand.

[forsaken1111]

I really like the idea of this system, if not the specifics lain out here, but I also don't think DF is quite ready for it. I think once material degradation is put into the game, this sort of thing will flow naturally from it.

[thijser]

I think this could be the first step towards making material degradation.
(75% support 20.8% against)