Print

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

[Draco18s]

You can build in the mountains, and just dump all your rubble off the nearest cliff.

If you want to dig a big hole, you have to put all the stuff you dig out somewhere.  That's simply the way that tunneling works.

I know how it works in real life, my issue is that hauling is so fundamentally WRONG right now that forcing every tile to take up an entire tile somewhere else before that space can be used is a f*ing pain in the ass.  Right now for it to be anywhere near feasible you'd need 199 haulers to 1 miner, depending on the length of the haul.

[Demonic Gophers]

Which is why supporters of conserving mass in mining acknowledge that it requires drastically improved hauling before it can be implemented.

[profit]

The only good thing I can see in this suggestion thread is the possibility if this is made to force toady to alter the way hauling works.. and implement mine carts or kick ass mine carts, rather than listen to the shrill screams of the community that the game is broken beyond playability.

[Drunken]

Allow me to summarise, if I may, my understanding of this argument.

Everyone agrees:
-Hauling and stacking need to be upgraded (Just being able to carry around a bucket or bin and fill it with materials and then hauling the whole lot would make a big difference)
-Wagons conveyor belts, chutes, wheelbarrows, elevators would all be nice too.
-Any slowdown caused by excess objects is a bad thing if it can be avoided.
-The current stone system is not satisfactory to many people as it is unrealistic AND it causes lots of micromanagement, cpu slowdown and doesnt look pretty.

Given that:
-Improved hauling, stacking and mining hazards are in the future dev.
-We have to assume the changes that everyone agrees on above will be made before any changes to stone management, and therefore we can take them as a given in our plans as to how it should go.
-The fact that having REALISTIC STONE: OFF in the raws means we can actually discuss two options: The option that is easiest on the processor and requires the least micromanagement, and the option that is the most realistic.
-Some aspects of any element of gameplay can be expected to be in the raws.

I think:
-We should divide our arguments into those two ideas, if you are for simplification outline what your ideal simplified system is. If you are for complexification then go ahead as you have been outlining a complexified system.
-We need to think about what is the best for the average user, as the real hardcore DF players have no problem modding their game for a bit of extra challenge or fun.

My ideal complexification:
-Each tile giving one object is preferable, we dont need stacks of 7 rubble as there is no real need to divide them
-Being able to dump stone into a tailings pile and have it turn into ground is preferable in both systems to reduce cpu lag, one minor problem is that this makes a new type of ground unfortunately: obsidian tailings for example, as being able to mine a rubble pile for blocks is silly. This may cause implementation difficulties
-I think off site dumping and worldgen building projects are acceptable uses for stone, but not neccesary

And remember:
-Our job here is to come up with constructive workable suggestions for Toady. If you only think about what you want and ignore what others want, or if you ignore implementation costs, and processing costs, your suggestion is less valuable.
-If we all work together realistically on this thread we have a good chance of getting what we want. If we argue and fight and disagree that chance is reduced.

[Granite26]

You skipped from everyone agrees to many people in 5 lines...

[Draco18s]

And I only fall into that particular line in partial.

I agree that the current system is faulty and unrealistic, etc, etc.  But I'm satisfied with it over just about any proposed realistic solution.

Why?  Because the things I have issues with only get worse when its made realistic (item clutter, micromanagement, and cpu slowdown).

[Pilsu]

If we argue and fight and disagree that chance is reduced.

If we all agree with what I want, I'm we're more likely to get it!

[Granite26]

If we argue and fight and disagree that chance is reduced.

If we all agree with what I want, I'm we're more likely to get it!

This reminds me of the 'bipartisanship' politics.  Why do you nasty Republicans have to stand in the way of our redistribution of wealth?  I thought we were going to be bipartisan!?!?!?  (A counter example from the other side escapes me at the moment, but I'm sure it's there)

[Drunken]

Everyone agrees: [that]
-The current stone system is not satisfactory to many people

Exactly which part of this did you have trouble understanding?

This reminds me of the 'bipartisanship' politics.

Me too, I thought my summary was relatively unbiased and covered the most important points. If people disagree with something in it why can't they do so in a civil way rather than making fun of it. It's just childish. If you have somthing serious to add to the conversation Granite I am waiting to hear it. Draco so you are not one of the "many people" I was referring to, good for you. I imagine your summary is "leave it as it is." Well good for you.

Lets have a poll shall we. Poll question: "Do you think stone management and mining should be changed before version 1.0, whether made more complicated or less, or do you think it should stay the same as it is now?"

If the majority of forum users want it to be left as is I imagine Toady will be responsive to this.

If anyone has anything serious and informed to say about my summary I am happy to edit it in. If on the other hand someone has their own summary that is totally different why not post it.

If on the other hand you have stupid half joke comments that add nothing to the topic, why not go join something awful.

[Silverionmox]

I think your poll question is rather restrictive (nothing changes) and uninformative (which changes?). Keep in mind that this is an alpha, everything is still fluid, and the game as it is now will probably have thoroughly different dynamics when it approaches v1.00. (For example, the pace of migration, the occurence of moods and the farming yields are now on 'sandbox mode'.) Discussing the quantity of stone is completely unproductive, as it should be a changeable with a minor edit of the relevant raw.

What we should do here is to come up with relevant variables that might influence mining, so they can be written into the game mechanics. How much exactly they affect mining should be a question for modders, who can set any of them to irrelevant.

Most of the stuff that heats up the discussion is not about mining anyway, but about hauling.

[Qwernt]

I haven't read the whole thread, so feel free to flame 

For me, the headache is that when you want rocks (at the begining of the game) you don't get many (cause your miners are not so hot) and then when you don't want rock you have it coming out of your ears (like when you finally have to build 150 bedrooms).  Maybe it should be a little more like weapons, through options.  IE, when in the barracks, a success is actually a miss and a fail is a hit while in battle a success is a hit and a fail is a miss.  So the solution I am thinking is to simply have an option (maybe per stone type) that determines if the miner is trying to create a rock or trying not to - note, can't be that simple on the impelementation or a sucky miner would always invert the option...  always try to fail cause he is likely to fail at failing...

Anyway, that was my random thought on how to keep the object count down - rather than dealing with carts, etc to move the extras to the lava bath.

[Whitestar60]

I have to say I agree with the suggestions that unmined soil/rock be treated as a 7/7 tile for more realistic mining, AND that such should be toggled from the ini for those who want the current but less realistic system. If we can use the resulting rubble to back fill area's into solid 7/7 tiles (perhaps with a Backfill designation?) I can think of plenty of uses. Provided that such wouldn't be a pain in the neck to implement.

[Mike Mayday]

I believe just the fact that this thread is still running should be a good incentive to consider both the realistic and simple mining model.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Having this as a toggle option is almost certainly impossible do to the way the map structures would need to be so radically different.

[Shaostoul]

Nothing wrong with tougher to dig through material. I know that if you severely increase the density of rock it become harder to dig through. However for the sand thing, that could be difficult.

If you implement toxic gases you have to have a better designed wind system so you could actually vent said gases. If the wind is better implemented and lighting is implemented at the same time, I could see toxic or explosive gases being implemented as well.

However, it could all be a HUUUUUGE frame rate dropper having to manage that stuff.