1
DF Suggestions / Channeling Compromises (Read the OP!)
« on: May 07, 2010, 11:07:37 am »
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.
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.