Print

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

The new channeling is covered in awesome sauce, the old channeling smelled real bad.

113 (19.3%)

The old channeling was the best, we don't need two ways to make ramps it is just silly.

245 (41.8%)

Old channeling was the best, new channeling is also the best.  Can't we all just get along?

132 (22.5%)

You people need to get on with your lives, it's not a big deal either way.

96 (16.4%)

Total Members Voted: 583

[Sean Mirrsen]

Somebody should restart the poll with the double-designation suggestion added.

[rylen]

My problem with the new channeling - it requires a new way of thinking while I still get the cues telling me its the old thinking.  I've only played a bit, but have repeatedly channeled my miners into dead end pits.

The old dig down, leaving exposed rubble but no path was fine.  I had to make stairs or a ramp later to haul out the rock and smooth the stone.  It trained me to designated carefully to avoid unintentional collapses and cartoon branch sawing scenes.

I think I'll accept the new version when I stop trying to dig into what will eventually be the center of symmetric pit (for instance, a deep well).  Eventually I'll remember how this works and usually leave my dwarfs a path up.

I feel double designation is too much work, though it is more aesthetic than my usual solution.  (Ramp down, do stuff, cover ramp with constructed floor or wall.)  I would like to see a ramp down designation, so I can mark my ramps on level Z while I'm laying everything out, instead of marking my place and putting them in on Z-1.  Plus, having \/ instead of _ makes it clear what I'll see after the digging finishes.

[Lord Darkstar]

ntp, in the 11 page long bug thread, G-Flex claims in post http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=52685.msg1168626#msg1168626 that Toady One said it in an IRC chat, and posted a snippit from dwarf fortress IRC history.

Frankly, I cannot imagine someone as brilliant as Toady thinking that changing the behavior would stop near instant defense making. If that is what he was after, then wouldn't he have had just given goblins water walking, magma walking, and wall climbing? Then you'd be stuck with fighting it out, because they could cross any moat and pass any wall. Which is what we will eventually get when seiging gets put in properly--- meaning, you won't even get to mega-beasts and other special attackers before you have a "FUN" ending. If he wanted to make dwarf fortress more difficult/challenging early on, without it being always pure FUN, he could have just given goblins the ability to jump 2 or 3 tiles, and therefore make players work harder to create their starting defenses. Or added in minor flying menaces (like eaglemen or batmen) and water ignoring menaces (like frogmen) that occasionally raid your fortress. So I am left presuming he made this change to channelling due to his own belief that "dwarves are too stupid to dig a pit from above", because that's what he is communicating with this change.

If you could remove a ramp UNDER WATER or UNDER MAGMA from above, then this change wouldn't matter ascetically, and therefore the gripe factor would drop to "Now we've got to double designate moats and pits? Sigh!". We already have many processes that require multiple input from us players, such as having to smooth and then engrave a wall or floor, even though engraving should just autosmooth it for us (meaning, it just takes longer to engrave a patch, and if interrupted, the wall would just be "smooth" and await any engraver's attention to be finished).

I do understand that it is easier to designate ramps "from above" and avoid the whole z axis swapping to get a ramp where you want it. But if you are going to be building anything multilevel, you are going to have to swap z axis anyways, and once you can do that, you should be able to work out that the X of dig (or whatever designation you are doing) is where something will be, and just moving up or down the z will allow you to check the placement so everything is lined up.

[Silverionmox]

[...] So I am left presuming he made this change to channelling due to his own belief that "dwarves are too stupid to dig a pit from above", because that's what he is communicating with this change.

Would you please explain to me how exactly they do that, then? Especially in the case with walls adjacent to water or magma. Thanks.

[LegoLord]

I honestly haven't been having much trouble getting rid of ramps when I want to, except for when the miners are busy doing other things.  And honestly, does a moat need to have both walls without ramps?  Just one without ramps is good enough for defensive purposes.

I like how you can now designate ramps from above to channel out a pit.  You can see the level above the one you want emptied, instead of switching back and forth 'tween the two every time you designate a portion of what you want.

[Tarran]

I don't understand why everyone is so against this change, besides the obvious aesthetics problem (which you should only have a problem far from your main fort). And it's not like it takes a whole year just to dig a tunnel to the channel, remove the ramps, and wall up the tunnel!

It's not that hard to dig a two tile channel and then remove one side of the ramps.



Similarly, I think we should have ropes, as that would fix most of our problems, and it would make removing the ramps a bit more easier.

I'm surprised that everyone is complaining about channels and not about the new military screens.

[Chicken Launcher]

I think a lot of the people who like the new channeling system because mass-designations are easier don't realize that even in 40d you could just designate ramps on the level below with the same effect as the new "channel" designation. Almost all of the ramps are removed when they aren't connected to a wall, and removing them is as easy as the remove ramp designation. Now without the old channel designation, there's no way to have a pit or waterway without ramps unless your miners personally go down there and dig it out/remove the ramps, which is incredibly annoying to manage.

[Lord Darkstar]

Would you please explain to me how exactly they do that, then? Especially in the case with walls adjacent to water or magma. Thanks.

It has been explained repeatily how to dig a pit without getting into it while not using modern construction equipment, in the other threads about this bug/feature. Humans have been managing this task since they started digging pits. So dwarves should be able to do it much better than us, because they are so much better with rock and stone. They manage things that are impossible for us, so they shouldn't even be challenged by such a simple digging task.

If your dwarf doesn't have anywhere safe to stand to make the pit, you'd get an error. Then you'd have to build floor over your water pool or magma or take down a wall to give them somewhere to work from. This would certainly better than having your DWARF DROWN or BURN needlessly. Which is what happens now under the current 0.31.x changed dig channel system--- as that RAMP he digs when he breaches water or magma is the fastest and shortest way to safety. Would you rather have to step through the process for when the ramp first appears so you can forbid it and then let the dwarf run for a safe way up?

[Sean Mirrsen]

If I'm that worried about the safety of the miner doing the last connection, I'll much rather leave the channel unconnected and use a pump. Bonus points for not allowing sneaky swimmers into the system.

[moki]

I prefer the old way.
If I want ramps, I'll designate them from the level below - it's not harder or more complicated than from above. If I don't want ramps, I have a problem with the current version. That's why I prefered the old system.
Being realistic for 14th century digging methods is no argument for me. It's a game and therefore playability and ease of use is more important than realism. If realism and playability go along nicely, there's no problem, but that's not the case here, in my opinion.

Being able to remove ramps from above would be ok, but still unnecessarily complicated. An init option would be great, but I guess, some people wouldn't want the init to be cluttered up with something like that.

[Grocer]

Somebody should restart the poll with the double-designation suggestion added.

Couple people have mentioned this.  I thought it was obvious but apparently I was wrong.  Choice one is for the new system.  Choice two is for the old system.  Choice three is for both.  Choice four is, well, I hope that one is obvious at least.

It's a bit late in the game to change the poll options, so I'll note the clarifications (and the score at the time of the edit) in the first post.

I disagree. I think you can fairly argue that the link from the bugs forum thread introduces bias into the polled audience.

This is probably correct, but it's not going to be particularly scientific either way.  Deathworks' note about numbers and interest is the main info we're going to get.

The poll options also leave something to be desired. Consider that the only option in favour of the new system is also the only option which uses negative language to disparage the previous system. There are multiple options in favour of the old system to various degrees, but only one for the new system.

As I noted above, this is apparently my fault.  One and three support the new system.  Two and three support the old system.  I guess I thought it was obvious because those were essentially the three opinions that people were coalescing around in the two other threads (with much individual variance, as befits the DF community).  Not an assumption I should have made.  And I thought that the choice in favor of the old system was disparaging towards the new system as well, while remaining innocently childish so as not to provoke ire.  At least, that was how it was intended.

On a related note, removing ramps from above doesn't solve the path-finding issue with ramping into dangerous flows.  Opposition to the change is not exclusively about aesthetics as some people here seem to believe.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Ever thought of making the channels OSHA compliant? As in, removing ramps before any dangerous flows are in there? [/sarcastic mock]

Seriously, the game won't keep being the same forever, you'll have to adapt new techniques as it changes. You're all just too used to the old system, and the new system annoys you. Spend some time getting used to it, and you won't want to revert.

We still need that "remove ramp from above" or "double channel" functionality though.

[LegoLord]

I think a lot of the people who like the new channeling system because mass-designations are easier don't realize that even in 40d you could just designate ramps on the level below with the same effect as the new "channel" designation.

I do realize that, and did so in previous versions.  That doesn't change the fact that there are now situations in which using the channel designation makes it easier.  Say, having a tunnel that leads out on level z, and then having it connect to a two- level chamber that occupies level z and level z-1.

[Footkerchief]

ntp, in the 11 page long bug thread, G-Flex claims in post http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=52685.msg1168626#msg1168626 that Toady One said it in an IRC chat, and posted a snippit from dwarf fortress IRC history.

Frankly, I cannot imagine someone as brilliant as Toady thinking that changing the behavior would stop near instant defense making. If that is what he was after, then wouldn't he have had just given goblins water walking, magma walking, and wall climbing? Then you'd be stuck with fighting it out, because they could cross any moat and pass any wall. Which is what we will eventually get when seiging gets put in properly--- meaning, you won't even get to mega-beasts and other special attackers before you have a "FUN" ending. If he wanted to make dwarf fortress more difficult/challenging early on, without it being always pure FUN, he could have just given goblins the ability to jump 2 or 3 tiles, and therefore make players work harder to create their starting defenses. Or added in minor flying menaces (like eaglemen or batmen) and water ignoring menaces (like frogmen) that occasionally raid your fortress. So I am left presuming he made this change to channelling due to his own belief that "dwarves are too stupid to dig a pit from above", because that's what he is communicating with this change.

The quote is for real and it kinda looks like you didn't even read it.  He never said it would "stop" anything, and he said it's a stopgap measure until the real improved sieges, which includes basically everything you proposed.

[Grocer]

You're all just too used to the old system, and the new system annoys you. Spend some time getting used to it, and you won't want to revert.

With all due respect, I don't think you have been reading what people have been writing. 

I understand that people are in favor of the new system because it makes strip mining easier.  Previously you have to watch out for dwarves dropping trees on their heads or getting temporarily stuck.  This removes those annoyances.  It replaces them with dwarves dying and picks being lost due to dwarven stupidity during common activities.  Your response to that is 'lol, get used to it suckers'.

Removing ramps from above does not prevent dwarves from dashing to grisly death.  The only thing that prevents that is micromanagement that makes keeping an eye out for undermined trees and stuck dwarves look like digging out a 5x5 room.  And it only works with luck, there's no guarantee.  Double channel just duplicates the remove ramp designation. 

This should not be difficult to understand.  People are not pissed about this change solely due to aesthetics.

I myself see no reason not to keep the new way, and bring back the old channeling as well.  Call them whatever the hell you want.  In the interests of balance, make channeling take 5 times as long to do.  Make it take 50 times as long, it doesn't matter.

EDIT:  I suppose I should add that some people also find the new method more intuitive, that's important too.