(+ is floor, # is wall and ▲ is ramp) Topdown:
+++++++
+▲▲▲▲▲+
+++++++
Side:
\|If my poor ascii-presentation isn't clear enough, here's how I think it would look like from side in a drawn form:As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++
As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.Burneddi, as much as I dislike this new system, your visualisation of the result is wrong. It would be better to think of the ramps up as pyramids, and ramps down as inverted pyramids, with the points of adjacent ramps joined by ridges or valleys as required.But a ramp is only passable to one direction, is it not?
Thats actually logical if you think about it, digging a traversable incline compared to totally removing a storey of earth from above -it does render 'dig ramp' redunt though
It's got to be a bug, it's just terrible. the three tile wide example given is the main problem, you just get a ditch filled with gentle inclines, and it makes channeling pretty much worthless now.
"Invaders, Behold my moat of... uh... shallow... ramps... and ... I... welp, you guys want us to just line up for the random murdering, or want to chase us around first?"
It's got to be a bug, it's just terrible. the three tile wide example given is the main problem, you just get a ditch filled with gentle inclines, and it makes channeling pretty much worthless now.I think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.
"Invaders, Behold my moat of... uh... shallow... ramps... and ... I... welp, you guys want us to just line up for the random murdering, or want to chase us around first?"
... outside ...
...............
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
...............
.... inside ...
Step 1: Dig channels at "^" markersI think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.
One upside is that if your dwarves accidentally fall in the moat, they have a chance to escape, and can get back in if the drawbridge is down.
Here's what makes it stupid.Code: [Select]As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++
As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++
But a ramp is only passable to one direction, is it not?No, it is only passable to the upper level on sides with walls, and on the lower level on sides without walls. The number of each is irrelevant.
If you can't dig channels anymore, why does the option exist at all? Ditch it and just force us to make ramps everywhere, it's the Real Dwarven Way(tm)(r)(c). In fact, Real Dwarves(tm) don't make stairs either, do they? Another way to simplify the game! :D
Personally I like ramps for water things, aesthetics be damned, so what if it's "less pretty" it's no longer an inescapable deathtrap. (unless you want it to be.) But that's neither here nor there. If the channel designation can't make channels that's a bug, no ifs nor buts.
^^^Quoted for emphasis.Here's what makes it stupid.The central ramp does collapse (disappear, rather), just as it would have if you mass-designated a bunch of ramps in the old version.Code: [Select]As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++
As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++
Furthermore, to illustrate what the current version would ACTUALLY look like:
+++++
+▼▼▼+
+▼.▼+
+▼▼▼+
+++++
or if that's not clear enough, in the case of a larger pit:
++++++++
+▼▼▼▼▼▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼▼▼▼▼▼+
++++++++
Or from the side:
¯\______/¯I don't think you can dig ramps from the z-level above like you can dig channels.Yes, you can.
I actually have had an issue when channeling out large areas(I was making a 2-story room underground as a sort of front gate) where every once in awhile some of the ramps wouldn't disappear. So in the 10X10 square, there were ramps all along the edge(as would be expected) and about 4 ramps scattered around the middle with no adjacent walls for the rocks to ramp up to.
Also, can somebody confirm whether or not ramps go up all adjacent walls? That might explain why my miners stopped being able to reach the booze. I had a 1-wide ramp ditch in front of the entrance, that might have only allowed one sided entry exit. There might be another explanation though.
I actually have had an issue when channeling out large areas(I was making a 2-story room underground as a sort of front gate) where every once in awhile some of the ramps wouldn't disappear. So in the 10X10 square, there were ramps all along the edge(as would be expected) and about 4 ramps scattered around the middle with no adjacent walls for the rocks to ramp up to.
That's nothing new. Natural/carved ramps only collapse when you remove adjacent walls, so if you channel away that last tile, and it's been isolated, you get a free-standing tile.
Bane of my landscaping efforts for a while now - atleast we can designate Remove Ramps now(please tell me that's new - if it's not and I simply somehow managed to overlook it until now, I'm going to tantrum).Also, can somebody confirm whether or not ramps go up all adjacent walls? That might explain why my miners stopped being able to reach the booze. I had a 1-wide ramp ditch in front of the entrance, that might have only allowed one sided entry exit. There might be another explanation though.
Likewise, I've occasionally had issue with ramps not working right. Nothing new. I just used stairs instead.
############_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
O
O
O
WSo my miner goes and happily mines out the walls as normal, gets to the channel, and yes, digs a ramp. He digs a ramp down the next level too, and down the next, and so on. I thought, "Curious," and left to go do something else. When I came back, Urist had smashed into the water below, blood splashing everywhere, and eventually drowned. On the plus side, all of the ramps had disappeared and in their place was the traditional open space expected from a channel. So instead of V I had _, if you know what I mean, *nudgenudgewinkwink.* I think channels should be reverted, because this is completely redundant.
Why is it completely redundant?
Because it does exactly the same thing as designating ramps on the next level down.
If I wanted a ramp I would've designated a ramp, so when I designate a channel I expect a channel.
I think it is redundant. If there is no stone underneath old channel and new channel do the same thing.I think channels should be reverted, because this is completely redundant.
Why is it completely redundant?
Because it does exactly the same thing as designating ramps on the next level down.
If I wanted a ramp I would've designated a ramp, so when I designate a channel I expect a channel.
Technically, a "dig ramp" designation is not capable of removing a floor tile when the stone underneath has already been mined out - additionally, if you try to designate a tile on Z+1 for channeling, a dwarf isn't smart enough to do it from Z+0, while designating a Ramp to be dug on Z+0 will have the same net effect.
I think that was the point of the change, so that digging a 1-tile wide ditch wasn't such an effective instant defence.
Personally, I have a lot of use for the channelling even as it is now since I do remove excessive pieces of landscape or even some entire hills: Dig out the level below and cut it of, and presto! one overhang less.
In addition, I was always reluctant about moat defenses because they do not give you protection against ranged weapons which were very deadly until now - built walls did a much better job at directing people to your traps.
Wolfius: As Zakastra hinted, removing ramps has been in 3D for a long time. It has been a standard part of my defenses to remove all natural ramps so as to force enemies to path through a few trap-ridden pathways (although you never were and still are not allowed to remove ramps at the border of the map (T_T)
Deathworks
Wolfus Cancels : Post Topic, Tantruming
It does, however, make an aesthetic mess when landscaping/breaching existing ponds and rivers.Personally I've always thought it strange that rivers and ponds have cliff-like straight sides. How many natural bodies of water have a swimming-pool edge? I don't see why dwarves shouldn't be able to wade a few feet into a river where they might battle carp without guaranteed drowning. (oh and being prone/standing in water still needs to be rationalized into something.)
Otherwise I don't mind it at all.
Fair enough, but that's an issue about pond generation, not channeling.It does, however, make an aesthetic mess when landscaping/breaching existing ponds and rivers.Personally I've always thought it strange that rivers and ponds have cliff-like straight sides. How many natural bodies of water have a swimming-pool edge? I don't see why dwarves shouldn't be able to wade a few feet into a river where they might battle carp without guaranteed drowning. (oh and being prone/standing in water still needs to be rationalized into something.)
Otherwise I don't mind it at all.
But that's just me.
Whether this is a bug or not, it was much better before.
Basically, "dig channel" became "dig a hole" in the new version. People who tend to dig channels hate it. People who tend to dig holes love it. I dig holes. :P
You know, you could just designate ramps in the old version... This adds no new functionality and takes away some.
There is no way to do something like breach a magma pipe without leaving an unsightly ramp in the current version, so this change resulted in a net loss of functionality.
You know, you could just designate ramps in the old version... This adds no new functionality and takes away some.
There is no way to do something like breach a magma pipe without leaving an unsightly ramp in the current version, so this change resulted in a net loss of functionality.
Edited my post while you were typing, sorry.
But no, I didn't know that. The interface is already so full of different functions that I can't remember what every single one of them does and what the absurdly small differences are.
EDIT: And I'd say an unsightly ramp while breaching a river is necessary. You wouldn't expect a dwarf to be able to remove all the dirt before the water flows in, would you? ::)
Personally I've always thought it strange that rivers and ponds have cliff-like straight sides. How many natural bodies of water have a swimming-pool edge? I don't see why dwarves shouldn't be able to wade a few feet into a river where they might battle carp without guaranteed drowning. (oh and being prone/standing in water still needs to be rationalized into something.)
But that's just me.
You know, you could just designate ramps in the old version... This adds no new functionality and takes away some.
People saying that channelling is the same as ramp-digging are failing to notice that this is only the case when underneath the channel is solid.
Digging a hole in a floor over an excavated area is still channeling.
Personally I think the worst thing it (for now) did to me was to have a miner 'channel' a ramp and then happily stepping into the now filled-with-magma tile.When the genetics gets implemented, at least you'll have the satisfaction of seeing stupidity getting evolved out of your dwarves!
He was cremated.
People saying that channelling is the same as ramp-digging are failing to notice that this is only the case when underneath the channel is solid.What you fail to notice is that this doesn't actually provide any new functionality. You can do the exact same thing in a different order by just sending someone down into the pit to remove the ramps, and it has the exact same drawback: that you cannot do this without either leaving one ramp, or leaving a dwarf down there.
Digging a hole in a floor over an excavated area is still channeling.
People saying that channelling is the same as ramp-digging are failing to notice that this is only the case when underneath the channel is solid.
Digging a hole in a floor over an excavated area is still channeling.
That said, I think a good compromise would be to revert, but require some of the digging to be done from inside the channel (below the designation), forcing you do dig down stairs or a ramp so that your dwarf can get in there to dig.That's even worse. At least the current version means your dwarf will only get incinerated/swept away if they start being stupid. Your idea would leave the unwanted ramps and require that the dwarf stands directly in harms way as they excavate the last square.
###########
###########
###########
###########
###########
###########
###########
###########
###########
This is the tile undug.
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
###########
This is what it was like in 40d.
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
#.........#
##.......##
###.....###
#####.#####
###########
###########
This is what it is like now.I've been doing some investigating with this myself.
I think the new channelling system is less like digging a channel and more like digging a trench.
The only differences between building a ramp and digging a trench are:
A: The former is done from below, the latter is done from above.
B: You can use it to remove floor tiles that have no earth below them.
C: When digging a trench, the miner seems to avoid the trench, but when digging a ramp the miner is more than happy to stand in the trench and dig. Other dwarfs will have no issues stepping in the trench however, and once the miner is done digging, neither will he.
I actually lost a miner to C. And not in the typical "frozen in an aquifer" way.
I'd decided to build my fort into the side of a cliff you see. I'd started building from above, but I'd managed to dig out a room a little too close to the aquifer, and suddenly a every room below it was flooded. It was an inconvenience, but I worked out that what I'd do is I'd go to the room above, and mine out to the cliff face:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Then I figured what I'd do is I'd dig out a channel so that the water in the room below would be funnelled out, giving me time to get a wall up and block off the aquifer, so that I could then drain the lower levels:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
It was then that I discovered that I was not digging channels, but ramps. I was initially pretty confused, but it wasn't too big a deal. After all, the water was still draining, and everything was working as intended, more or less:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
That was, until my miner decided that the fastest way to get back to the stockpiles was through the channel.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
What Locus said. The old channeling stood in for two things currently not in the game. A method for climbing out of pits and a safe method for breaching dangerous flows. As I understand it, climbing is waiting for the pathfinding rewrite and (if we're lucky) breaching will arrive when mechanics evolves. The new channeling stops abstracting out those two things* to become more realistic. I just don't understand how it's more realistic when the other options don't exist yet but would be perfectly in line with a 'realistic' situation. By all means change the behavior, but at least wait until other options are available.
*Yes, you can still breach but as has been detailed it is much more susceptible to fatal dwarven stupidity (especially if you want a breach more than one tile wide).
What Locus said. The old channeling stood in for two things currently not in the game. A method for climbing out of pits and a safe method for breaching dangerous flows. As I understand it, climbing is waiting for the pathfinding rewrite and (if we're lucky) breaching will arrive when mechanics evolves. The new channeling stops abstracting out those two things* to become more realistic. I just don't understand how it's more realistic when the other options don't exist yet but would be perfectly in line with a 'realistic' situation. By all means change the behavior, but at least wait until other options are available.
*Yes, you can still breach but as has been detailed it is much more susceptible to fatal dwarven stupidity (especially if you want a breach more than one tile wide).
Thank you, I was worried I'd have to quote my own post about abstraction.
I like comparisons, so:
Your engravers don't need a chisel to carve solid granite, your miners don't need a step ladder to hop out of their channel, or shoring deconstruction mechanisms to breach a pool wall. You're still able to engrave, you should still be able to channel and breach—two activities which are as old as sedentary civilization.
Anyhow, this is a decision Toady One has made, and there is really not much you can do about it.Considering this wasn't a hyped feature, if it was ever even discussed at all, I'm sure he won't mind reverting or altering it if it is clear it causes significant gameplay concerns.
Maybe if you get two choices for channeling, one with ramps and one without.We already had these two choices: Channel and Carve Ramp. There's nothing stopping you carving a ramp from above.
I like the idea of an option for channels and one for holes, the holes being channels without ramps, but couldn't you guys just make your channels, uh..Turning:
Wider?
^
^
^
^into:^^^^
^..^
^..^
^^^^What exactly does that accomplish?
I, personally, don't really like it all that much, but it simulates channels more realistically, have any of you ever tried to mine a straight hole with a pickaxe? Nether have I, but a pickaxe is round, so unless your dwarf can bend down and yet not fall in, it makes more sense to have ramps.
Realism aside, the biggest problem we have here is that the dwarven AI is not up to dealing with ditches that contain hazardous fluids. If the ditches themselves aren't a bug, the way dwarves run through them is.Yeah, that aquifer situation I mentioned? I reclaimed and lost all seven almost immediately. Only two were assigned to my attempt to salvage the dig area with pumps, the rest were just running around picking up reclaim objects. Definitely a hazardous terrain bug regardless of the channelling issue.
The ditch thing has got to be a bug--Unless this is all Toady's April Fools joke, and we're all fools. :-\
^^^Quoted for emphasis.Here's what makes it stupid.The central ramp does collapse (disappear, rather), just as it would have if you mass-designated a bunch of ramps in the old version.Code: [Select]As it would have been in 40d, . is open space:That shouldn't even be possible! The central ramp should collapse because it is not supported by walls from any direction.
+++++
+...+
+...+
+...+
+++++
As it is now:
+++++
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+▲▲▲+
+++++Code: [Select]Furthermore, to illustrate what the current version would ACTUALLY look like:
+++++
+▼▼▼+
+▼.▼+
+▼▼▼+
+++++
or if that's not clear enough, in the case of a larger pit:
++++++++
+▼▼▼▼▼▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼....▼+
+▼▼▼▼▼▼+
++++++++
Or from the side:
¯\______/¯
Which, really, does sorta make sense.
Going along with the general..oddness of the change, has anyone else found odd pathing errors with their miners and other dwarfs when using the ramps created by the channels as, well..ramps for accessing different levels?I'm not sure that's strictly related to the channelling, as I've had similar issues when using stair combinations to dig shafts. It may (or may not :P ) be part of the larger pathing issues with this early release.
My miners constantly get stuck if I am doing that. They'll quit their jobs with designations right in front of them, won't go near them despite completely open space and accessibility to the area they need to go to.
I really like this method the best. The old way should really have been considered a bug anyways. Having to remove the ramps afterword makes sense from a construction point of view. I also find that the miners are making much fewer mistakes that before (yeah I know now about upwards ramps ::) ).You know, I've dealt with dozens of excavators on the homes I've built, and maybe dwarves are exceptionally stupid, but I've never met a guy who couldn't dig a straight-walled pit too tall to jump out of with the help of some basic equipment. Exit ramps are only there for granting machinery access, something our Dwarfs don't generally have to worry about.
Lol really as said before the gameplay is not any better. What has happend was toady basically duplicated a feature and got rid of a different one.
That said, I would support a "Dig Pit" (old functionality) vs. "Dig Channel" (new functionality).
No more having to dig out one edge at a time. No more digging stairs everywhere before channelling.The only time I ever had to dig out one edge at a time was if I was channeling over an already mined-out area. You still have to do that if you don't want your dwarves surfing floor down to the next level.
No more having to dig out one edge at a time. No more digging stairs everywhere before channelling.The only time I ever had to dig out one edge at a time was if I was channeling over an already mined-out area. You still have to do that if you don't want your dwarves surfing floor down to the next level.
Realism is the worst argument to have about the 'ramping' of channels.
I have little sympathy for people whose dwarves get stuck - this is avoidable, usually easily, and it is typically trivial to rescue them (by, for instance, having them dig a ramp beneath their feet). Digging large pits - ramping has been the best way to do this since the game went 3D AFAIK. 'Ninja' trees falling on your dwarves' heads. What did you think was going to happen when you undermined that tree? Measure twice, cut once. Needing to think about what you're doing and pay attention are features, not bugs.This. If your miners are getting stuck, they're either clearing ceilings and would have been stuck anyway (and are lucky to be alive), or they're standing on a lone wall they can quickly deal with. Far less frustrating than having to free a mason who's walled himself in.
You expect to have an easily constructed defence at little expense (rhyme not intended), which is wrong for any gameplay reason I can think of.
To elaborate, channels as an easy early game defence were only made more difficult by this change on an order of digging an extra row, and then removing the outside ramps. Creatures still can't hop down, which is the essential element of your complaint. The poor "gameplay" element pointed out by Mirrsen is every bit as extant as it was before the change.You expect to have an easily constructed defence at little expense (rhyme not intended), which is wrong for any gameplay reason I can think of.
I hate to break this to you, I know that you were enjoying distancing yourself from your previous 'I like the new channeling because sometimes I don't pay attention to what I'm doing' argument but it is trivial to knock out a ditch that restricts access to whatever you like as currently implemented. You can even fill it with water (though I recommend that you fill it via pumps as channeling into a flow can be dangerous now). It's pretty clear that this change wasn't about removing an easy early defensive strategy.
As I said before, I am in favor of the new method, and seeing all the drama, I got the feeling that it is actually a good thing - good policy changes usually cause a lot of noise from the old elite :) :) :) :)...
And given that there seem to be people who dislike the new channelling, people who like the new channelling, and people who actually don't really care, I would recommend to have a poll attached to that discussion so you can really see whether there are really so many people who consider it a problem.The only new functionality the new method provides is allowing you to avoid undercutting trees. Everything else is just a function of people using the wrong tool for the job. In exchange, we lost the capacity to create aesthetically pleasing and safe waterworks, and turned unusual pathfinding into a significant bug.
Make the Channel designation a double-task designation. Channeling a flat surface will make a sloped canal, channelling a downward slope will remove the slope. If possible, do the same with the Dig designation, adding the "remove slope" functionality to it, and removing the dedicated designation. If you value aesthetics and/or safety, designating a second channel job to remove ramps won't be too much work.
[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
The new channeling system was not just implemented in order to provide new functionality. That is all.
I'm not saying the latter two are not important, but you have to agree that as far as the game goes, they are still less important than being able to strip-mine a surface layer without worrying about random dwarves getting stuck in the pit (or on the other side of wherever you're digging) until you remember to make a ramp or a stair.Like I said, this is only a problem because you were using the wrong tool for the job. There was nothing stopping you using nothing but ramps or staircases for this sort of work.
Well, of course I could designate a field of underground upward ramps, or maybe even downward, then upward staircases, which I did resort to periodically in the previous versions, but guess which is more straightforward and logical to dig out a patch of land - going to the layer below and designating ramps, or just designating a channel? This is also not taking into account that you have to remember where and how to dig stuff this way, because you don't see where you're digging while underground.I'm not saying the latter two are not important, but you have to agree that as far as the game goes, they are still less important than being able to strip-mine a surface layer without worrying about random dwarves getting stuck in the pit (or on the other side of wherever you're digging) until you remember to make a ramp or a stair.Like I said, this is only a problem because you were using the wrong tool for the job. There was nothing stopping you using nothing but ramps or staircases for this sort of work.
Of course it can be circumvented. The point is that it takes a fairly marginal amount of greater time/effort to do so.
removing ramps isn't slow
removing ramps isn't slow
It is if they're under water/lava (or perhaps some other, rarer circumstances), and removing all of the ramps and still getting out of the resulting pit is slightly more complicated.
Do you really care that much about seeing ramps along with the water? Does that actually matter?
Do you really care that much about seeing ramps along with the water? Does that actually matter?
Yes.
Why else would we go to such lengths to stop it happening?
If you care that much about minor aesthetic problems in a game like Dwarf Fortress, there is seriously something wrong.
That is not something that is significant enough to bother a reasonable person to the point of actually complaining.
... a miner grief...At first I thought it was a typo. Looking again, I don't know what to think.
I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.
As I said before, I am in favor of the new method, and seeing all the drama, I got the feeling that it is actually a good thing - good policy changes usually cause a lot of noise from the old elite :) :) :) :)...
Has it occurred to you that bad policy changes would also cause complaints?
QuoteAnd given that there seem to be people who dislike the new channelling, people who like the new channelling, and people who actually don't really care, I would recommend to have a poll attached to that discussion so you can really see whether there are really so many people who consider it a problem.The only new functionality the new method provides is allowing you to avoid undercutting trees. Everything else is just a function of people using the wrong tool for the job. In exchange, we lost the capacity to create aesthetically pleasing and safe waterworks, and turned unusual pathfinding into a significant bug.
You know, you can remove the ramps, so complaining is just a waste of time...
hahaha, you may have to sacrifice a dwarf for aesthetic's sake.
I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.
They aren't any more unremovable than they were though. And after all, it is practical. Next time your elite hammerdwarf dodges a troglodyte into your moat, you will wish it had ramps on its sides.
I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.
You're very wrong here G-Flex. People spend hundreds of hours making elaborate fortresses. Aesthetics are a huge issue, and stray unremovable ramps are an eyesore even for those of us who love ASCII graphics.
I said "reasonable". You're not being reasonable if the aesthetics matter that much. The aesthetics of DF are purely functional at this point, intended to display information rather than look pretty. And even if you do want to complain about how it looks, there are much, much more important things to complain about than seeing ramps below your water.
You're very wrong here G-Flex. People spend hundreds of hours making elaborate fortresses. Aesthetics are a huge issue, and stray unremovable ramps are an eyesore even for those of us who love ASCII graphics.
Maybe some people should realize that those things in the game are meant to be functional, and that things being slightly aesthetically weird is not an overarching concern in any way.
Some people might treat DF like it's essentially a lego set, but there's an actual game involved too, and its concerns take precedence over allowing you to construct any shape you feel like at any given time for any reason.
Some people might treat DF like it's essentially a lego set, but there's an actual game involved too, and its concerns take precedence over allowing you to construct any shape you feel like at any given time for any reason.
...taking away from my building tools to accomplish absolutely nothing (oh noes, i have to designate remove ramps for a moat) doesn't make it any harder to survive.
Make the Channel designation a double-task designation. Channeling a flat surface will make a sloped canal, channelling a downward slope will remove the slope. If possible, do the same with the Dig designation, adding the "remove slope" functionality to it, and removing the dedicated designation. If you value aesthetics and/or safety, designating a second channel job to remove ramps won't be too much work.
This would defeat the purpose of the change. I'll just find the IRC log, so people actually know why Toady did this instead of bickering constantly.
Okay, here we go:Quote[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
Maybe if you get two choices for channeling, one with ramps and one without.Personally this would be perfectly fine by me...
Really this would be simply fixed by allowing BOTH options.
You can have "Dig Channel" which would be the No-Ramp old version and
"Dig Down Ramp" which would be the new ramp version.
Even though I know that it can be done otherwise, I much prefer the new way of things, and so will nearly any player new to DF. Because it makes sense, and is easier to use.
Well, I can understand why some people would. For one, a single-wide ramp-channel with water would be indistinguishable from any such channel that goes into a hypothetical blue stone. But having them invisible always is also not advisable - because then you wouldn't be able to see when there's a way down underwater. This would make navigating the flooded cave complexes more difficult. And you won't be able to see when there's a way down into the water. In general, I think having ramps displayed in water is a lesser evil at the moment. Maybe later we'll have a different display for ramps, when/if the game moves away from its purely ASCII graphics, but until then I'd rather have them the current way.
Maybe there could be an alternative solution, like an ingame toggle of ramp drawing priority for this purpose, but I suspect this is needlessly complicating. There can be an easier and more elegant solution. Like background gradients, for example.
You now got three threads (I think) arguing about how it made channels more annoying to make, and you're still saying it didn't work? It worked alright, the problem are the bugs. Say what you want about it, but it's the extra things you have to do that annoy you. Get rid of the bugs and the workaround will perform its function perfectly.
How much harder would it have to be for you to accept it as "effectively" harder? Limiting the tool to designating one tile at a time? For the kind of widespread use the channels have, doubling the designations required is just the right amount of "hard".
How much harder would it have to be for you to accept it as "effectively" harder? Limiting the tool to designating one tile at a time? For the kind of widespread use the channels have, doubling the designations required is just the right amount of "hard".
FORGET REALISM. Its a game, and I want to have some bloody fun. I enjoyed the old channels much more.