40d Talk:Exploratory mining

This is a guide on how to search for valuable materials by mining.
...why is there any use for it? --Savok 18:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I think it's useful. The need for more resources, unless you're extremely lucky in the beginning, is not satisfied by the fort's initial digging efforts or its natural expansion. This usually leads to the need to dig in order to reveal large areas, and more often not, the most intuitive method the player thinks up is not the most efficient for their situation. Mining labor, being pretty scarce even for a medium sized fortress, shouldn't be squandered by using an inefficient method, especially if you want fast results.

--AlienChickenPie 04:13, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Mining labor? Scarce? O.o.

Grab a few peasant immigrants (or miner immigrants if you get any - they come with picks), get picks for them, and start them mining. If you mine out a significant area (like, "enough that you want more than two miners") you'll have legendary miners within a year.

But alright. I do agree that efficiency in exploratory mining is useful, since without it you ruin the area and get lots of useless stone. However, I argue that this article states things that should not be in a manual of any sort: We don't tell you how to make your fortress. We tell you what happens when X happens and we tell you what to do to get Y.

But you still disagree, I assume? Alright. If it really is bad, the article will get deleted/shrunk/merged. If it isn't, we should do it right.

*brings out the umkey*

--Savok 10:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I see what you're getting at, it would definitely be wrong to state design tips as facts or tell people how to build their fortress.

However, this article is intended to be a technical guide to mining methods, not a style guide. I'd like to make it as neutral and factual as possible.

Going over it again, I noticed that parts of it are written inappropriately for a technical article. For example, the usability part definitely steps quite a bit over the line, and I wouldn't mind seeing it removed or altered to contain only necessary facts.

--AlienChickenPie 14:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Proposal: Diagonal pattern

Would it be useful to add this pattern?

▒▒.▒▒▒▒.▒▒ ▒.▒▒▒▒.▒▒▒ .▒▒▒▒.▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒.▒▒▒▒. ▒▒▒.▒▒▒▒.▒

• Labor: 20% of the tiles are excavated.
• Scarcity: Any scarcity. Clusters as small as a single tile are revealed.
• Visibility: 100%.
• Reusability: With a bit of imagination you can build nice 3x3 rooms

I usually dig a diagonal squares with the sides 25 tiles long. And use this pattern later. (See Minepoint at map archive). It shows (almost) every vein...Dorten 09:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I fixed the formatting. Hope you don't mind. --Savok 10:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Not at all. I was hoping that someone would come over and give it a proper wiki makeover.

As for the layout, It's incredibly good. It's superior to the rows layout in every way, and it's less work intensive than the 7X7 block layout while giving full visibility.

Comparing all the layouts gave me an idea- We could group all the block layouts into a single block layout, seeing as they are all very similar and related. Different characters would denote different phases in the digging process. Then, we could introduce the block layout as modular, the diagonal layout as efficient and the hollow layout as thorough. I have half a mind to scrap the row layout altogether, seeing as it's pretty inferior.

--AlienChickenPie 14:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I was talking to Dorten - I fixed his formatting.

Anyway, the row layout does have one advantage: It gets all tiles and can be designated relatively quickly. I would hate to designate the diagonal layout for a whole z-level.

Additionally, row layouts are actually more efficient than block layouts, per tiles dug, although they might not catch a vein running in parallel to them. --Savok 18:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Macros help there a lot. Have you seen MinePoint? It was pretty quick.Dorten 01:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

No. What is it? --Savok 14:35, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Proposal: Real mining shafts

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒X▒▒X▒▒X▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ ▒X▒▒X▒▒X▒ ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

• Labor: 11.1% of the tiles are excavated.
• Scarcity: Any scarcity. Clusters as small as a single tile are revealed.
• Visibility: 100%.

You'll have to have a floor above it with tunnels to the stairs to go down, but after that floor, this provides maximum possible efficiency. --Savok 23:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

This actually has an 11.1% Labor Efficiency. An added bonus is that it's easy to make into square rooms of various sizes, the stairways can be removed and used as doorways, or just carved out as part of the rooms. It really is similar to the rows method, except turned on end each mined tile exposes 8 tiles, instead of 2. Instead of scattered tiles I'd call it mine shafts, though. Basilisk 16:38, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Erm. Oops. I'm usually better at math than that. *hurriedly fixes error* --Savok 14:54, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

this pattern is a a lot of work to designate, so I created a ahk script to speed it up, hope no one minds the link.--Otherdwarf 17:04, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

I redid this script's functionality from scratch, and I decided that since the original did not function at all (under the current version of AHK), that replacing old one was justified.StrawberryBunny 00:41, 6 August 2008 (EDT)