Isn't digging just too comfortable ?

[b0rsuk]

Rimworld inherits many mechanics from Dwarf Fortress. Among them is a bias for easy construction of underground tunnels and chambers.

People keep talking about how safe it is from mortars, but I'm starting to believe it's just much more convenient to build. There are many reasons.

1. You get walls by default. Whatever you do, you get strong, non-flammable walls.
I've been thinking how much work is it to build a square room outside versus digging one underground. If you want a room of the radius r, you need to dig out r**2 tiles. If you want to build walls outside such a room, you need ((r+2)**2) - (r**2)  - 1 tiles. The first parens is for a 2 tile bigger room, in second parens you hollow it out, then you substract the entrance at the end.

Let's check it out.
1x1 room costs 1 tile to dig, but 7 walls to build: (3*3) - (1*1) - 1
2x2 room costs 4 tiles to dig, but 11 walls to build: (4*4) - (2*2) - 1
3x3 room costs 9 tiles to dig, but 15 walls to build: (25 - 9 - 1)
4x4 room costs 16 tiles to dig, but 19 walls to build: (36 - 16 - 1)
5x5 room costs 25 tiles to dig, but 23 tiles to build: (49 - 25 - 1)
At last, REVENGE!

This is even more skewed in favor of digging if you don't build square rooms. Digging doesn't have this drawback.

Technically you don't need the corners, if you don't mind the light (not temperature) leaking out. This can be considered ugly, and doesn't conduct electricity. I'd put conduits inside rather than outside.

But wait! Is digging a tile the same amount of work as building one ? I don't have the hard numbers, but I suspect digging is faster in the end. The lack of progress display on tree cutting doesn't help. If you're building out of steel, that's 6-7 per tile. 35 steel is almost 6 normal walls, but exactly 5 conduit walls. To mine it, it's 1500 worth of work. Comparable to digging 3 tiles in slate, sandstone, or marble. So building outside is a bit faster initially, but then come the logistics. The bigger your colony is, the bigger the hassle with transport. However, you pay what you get, because that still will break to a mortar round or go down in flames. And you need it for other things.

Stone yields 20 blocks per chunk, that's 3 1/3 tile not counting steel and the extra fuss to haul it. Terrible for floors. But stone always needs to be hauled from the stockpile, which gets farther and farther away from subsequent constructions. Unless you dynamically create temporary stockpiles just to build. Digging is right there at the spot, and it rarely produces rubble you need to haul away. It's mostly a problem in corridors, but in rooms pawns are smart enough to path around them, you can leave chunks there for a long time.

Either way, there's no clear advantage for building outside. You'd think they would be searching for caves. Why there are no caves in Rimworld, Tynan ?

2. You get good, non-flammable floors by default.
Floor underground is always rock, and even unsmoothed it's faster to walk on than soil. You can make it as ugly as you want in next alpha, but outdoors this thing needs 6 stone blocks per tile, research, the work of a stonecutter, builder, and hauling. And in the process you're getting something as good as comes naturally underground. It's almost as if the game wanted you to stay underground.

This is how a typical old-school mine looks.. Does it look comfy ? Does it look like it's just moving the soil out and you can move in ? No, you need to fight for every bit of space, place supports. It's cramped. There are rocky mines, too, and for some reason Rimworld defaults to them.

Conclusion:
I think Rimworld needs to rethink its digging model. You've inherited a model that favors digging and haven't changed it. I think it's off by an order of magnitude. How about more rubble,gravel to move away ? How about more supports ?

Why Tynan keeps adding challenges that strike outdoors ? Why not a single challenge unique to underground ? Hidden agenda ?

Another idea I have is to distinguish between mining corridors and fully digged spaces. Mining corridors would be quick to dig, good to move through, but you would be unable to build in space cleared this way. And they would deteriorate over time. Fully mined spaces would need 4x as much work as currently. So if you just wanted to mine,  you could still do so as easily as currently. But to build, that would be quite a bit more effort. Or find some caves and just build some walls to make entrances narrower.

[BetaSpectre]

Agreed Mine shafts should have debuffs and require supports past the ole to hold up a normal roof.

Supports every 5x5 space makes sense. And if past 5 auto collapse should be possible.

Mines are never secure IRL without supports.

[b0rsuk]

Building something in rainforest or boreal forest feels like having to dig without the benefits. You cut the trees to free some space, you get wood for that. But there's only so much wood you can use. I could make walls 2 squares wide, but it's only going to burn faster. But mine a vein of steel, silver and you get something very useful AND room for construction.

[UnionID]

Agreed. From the beginning it's always seemed more logical to move "underground" as soon as possible when building your colony.  The benefits for a cave-based colony heavily outweigh above ground builds in the long run, in my opinion.  You can throw up a wooden walled colony fairly quickly but it has the potential to burn down just as quickly.

The game is continuously moving towards a more realistic interaction with the environment. Mining is an extremely dangerous endeavor.  I would not find it unreasonable to experience some hazards when mining/building underground.  Penalties towards initial level of effort and some type of maintenance action/cost once mined would cover it I think. 

If you wanted to be particularly devious you could introduce seismic activity as a random event which could result in some level of disturbance to underground structures, or even above ground for that matter.  The geologic stability of a world, especially some unknown or unexplored world could easily be a hazard that needed to be dealt with.  If you wanted the player to have some idea of how stable an area is you could show the rating in the initial colony placement screen.  That way they have some level of choice if they want to deal with the potential risk of underground development.

[b0rsuk]

Seismic activity is one thing, seeping methane another.

The way I see it, the game can be about building an underground colony. Nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking. But that's missing opportunity to do something different. You don't want to do Dwarves with Guns, do you ? And DF has a head start. Rimworld already has areas where it squarely beats DF, such as combat. Let's not dillute that.

It's not helping that literally all the mystery in Rimworld is hidden underground. Ancient cryosleep caskets are underground. Mineral veins are underground. Undiscovered areas are underground. Outdoors, you have wood, raspberry bushes and meat.

[Monkfish]

I like the idea of earthquakes and caveins, and I especially like the idea of requiring supports when mining. Additional dangers such as gas pockets, which could explode, could make mining less of a walk in the park. Gas could also be a problem in that mines would require ventilation to avoid buildup of dangerous gases. Perhaps some form of handheld scanner could be researched to detect gas levels a block or so away.

The gas could also become a resource in itself in that it could be collected from mines gradually and used for heating or cooking, with associated risks due to fire or lightning.

[UnionID]

Seismic activity is one thing, seeping methane another.

The way I see it, the game can be about building an underground colony. Nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking. But that's missing opportunity to do something different. You don't want to do Dwarves with Guns, do you ? And DF has a head start. Rimworld already has areas where it squarely beats DF, such as combat. Let's not dillute that.

It's not helping that literally all the mystery in Rimworld is hidden underground. Ancient cryosleep caskets are underground. Mineral veins are underground. Undiscovered areas are underground. Outdoors, you have wood, raspberry bushes and meat.

True.  We wouldn't want to limit ourselves and turn the game into a one trick pony.  How we play is always a  matter of choice and we can decide not to play a particular strategy in order to explore another.  Even if modifications to underground exploitation is made, I have every confidence that Tynan would continue to institute improvements to the surface environment (I wouldn't mind inclusion of some type of tech discovery based off ancient ruins or somesuch) .  That is the beauty of a committed developer and an enthusiastic/participating player community.

Gas might be tricky to deal with mechanically, I know its a pain to deal with in the real world. But who knows  .

[Mystic]

The counterpoint I would offer is that, although you do get "free" walls underground, those walls don't carry electricity.  So when you want to run anything inside your base that is powered (e.g., heat, a/c, light, construction tables), you end up having to strip down and replace those "free" walls with constructed walls that have conduits.  Unless you are willing to run conduits all over the floor, that is, but I am not, because I think that is pretty ugly.  When I build an underground base (which is most of the time now), I usually take down at least half of the "free" walls and replace them with bricks made of the same material, but with conduit added.

And then there is the extra complexity of trying to run air conditioning in particular deep inside of a mountain, and somehow vent it to the outside.  I have quite a time with trying to design bases that allow for this sort of vent network while not impeding the colonist's ability to move quickly around in the base.

Those item, along with the extra time it takes just to chisel out underground areas (as opposed to the comparative rapidity of just building walls around empty spaces in the open), means that I don't think digging is quite as comfortable as has been proposed.  So many of us still do it just because it's very worthwhile in the long run for extra protection once the sieges commence.

If something should be changed, I would say that conduits that run across ground or flooring (as opposed to those inside walls) should be made more vulnerable to shorting out because of their exposure.  That would force people to give more consideration to not taking advantage of those "free" underground walls quite so much.

[UnionID]

When I build an underground base (which is most of the time now), I usually take down at least half of the "free" walls and replace them with bricks made of the same material, but with conduit added.

I hear you.  Aesthetics is always a factor, but that's comes down to personal choice/style of play.  As for conduit walls, in most industrial settings I've come across, power distribution systems are exposed for ease of maintenance and quick access during emergencies, so I'm sort of primed not to mind exposed conduits, although the added protection of conduit walls to your distribution system is nice. Replacing the walls underground is basically providing a support system once mining is complete, this is how I see the support factor being implemented, just with a reduction to the tolerance of support spacing in the existing roofing system.

And then there is the extra complexity of trying to run air conditioning in particular deep inside of a mountain, and somehow vent it to the outside.  I have quite a time with trying to design bases that allow for this sort of vent network while not impeding the colonist's ability to move quickly around in the base.

I'm glad you mentioned this.  I like the fact that you have to put some thought into your ventilation system.  It's one of the difficulties that is inherent to underground builds that differentiates it from surface builds.  Some could see it as a cost/penalty to choosing to go underground.

[Adamiks]

+1. Mining is toooo easy. And i think that mortars should can destroy underground structures. Defense for that will can be "supporting everything".

[pktongrimworld]

oh god no.


just don't build in mountains if it bothers you that much?

[Quasarrgames]

We don't need to revamp the digging model. All we need is a possibly dangerous event that affects underground buildings more then above-ground ones. like UnionID said.

Also, i can see that mineshaft being quite comfy. all you'd need is some good lighting, some drywall, maybe a tile floor, and it could be nice and homey.

[b0rsuk]

Okay, advantages of building a colony underground have been discussed many times. Can you name any advantages of having a colony on surface ? What's the best you can come up with ? What do you get in exchange for lightning, forest fires, dropping raids, mortars, crashing ship part ? Last game it landed RIGHT on top of my melee colonist and I had scythers in my base before within seconds. Unless you insist these are your reward.

[SSS]

I'm with b0rsuk. It makes for nice aesthetics, but from a practical standpoint, building on the surface has far more disadvantages. Making mining take longer, require more support, be vulnerable to seismic activity, and (maybe) incorporation of noxious gasses that need additional ventilation would all help balance it out.

[Kagemusha12]

I agree ...
perhaps mining should need a lot of wood for supports
(which may not be visible and also not hinder movement ... but be required during mining)

With wood as building material for the supports perhaps having a certain chance to not withstand the pressures (leading to a collapse of the ceiling above said support) and with the player having a chance to replace the wooden supports for mine tiles with steel or plasteel ones (with a much lowerr chance to fail)