Building Destruction

[Doug R.]

We are going to start planning the implementation of building destruction. This is the public feedback phase of pre-implementation.

This is what it looks like so far:

-destruction time is the sum of the base building construction time + (sum of construction times of all sub locations put into some math formula so it's less than the sum of its parts). This keeps destruction times reasonable. When you tear a building down, a lot collapses under it's own weight.

-all people/objects/raws/notes are moved to the parent location of the destroyed building upon destruction
(causing resource loss or personal damage is too controversial and will just get this held up in committee).

-Returns a % of raws equivalent to (Time to tear down)/(Time to build everything being destroyed) -Ensures you're not getting more resources than the time you put into it.

-Requires at minimum a crowbar (so people don't go tearing things down for the sole purpose of bypassing locks) and probably also a sledgehammer, at least for wood structures or sturdier.

Enlace a la discusión en el Foro Hispano: Destrucción de los Edificios

[SumBum]

YAY!!!

Questions: how is machinery handled? Are they part of the "objects" that get moved out to the parent location? So...we don't need to tear down all machinery before destroying a building?

[miirkaelisaar]

Yeah, I was wondering that too, if machines are moved too, or are they destroyed as part of the building and also give back resources? And if they are moved, what if there's a limit of machines outside already, or can they be moved again? And yes, there should definitely be tools needed to tear down a building, or anyone could just tear down your house or something. Maybe you could have it so people have to move everything manually before they can tear down a building? Then someone couldn't just start to tear down anyone's building. It would be more work for people who wanna get rid of a locked building they have no key for, but they'd already have to have a crowbar to be able to do the tear-down, so they could spend some time picking the lock and then take everything out. I just think despite being tedious, it would give a little security in the case of thieves and people who just wanna mess with everything. (sometimes people spawn and go around and start destroying all the machines before stealing things and running).

[Snickie]

how is machinery handled? Are they part of the "objects" that get moved out to the parent location?

My guess is that the machinery would be considered part of what you're trying to destroy, and therefore would be destroyed along with the building. If it were the other way around and machines would be moved outside, staff would have to start programming all machines to be built outdoors, because after some time, we'd be seeing an influx of casks, pot stills, radios, glass ovens, vehicle assembly lines, fireplaces, etcetera appearing outside.

[curious]

Will there be some way to stop the process easily, once begun? (I would also be fearful of mischief)
Whilst I don't imagine that a building with even a small percentage damage to it would be attractive or even usable, there may be some ability to halt and repair?

I like the idea of maybe having more run down looking town though.

[SumBum]

...staff would have to start programming all machines to be built outdoors, because after some time, we'd be seeing an influx of casks, pot stills, radios, glass ovens, vehicle assembly lines, fireplaces, etcetera appearing outside.

Or...people would purposely build those things in a building they intend to tear down in order to get the machinery outside. It would have to be that either the machines must be destroyed first or they are reduced to resources when the building is destroyed. Tearing down machines takes a long time. There are several buildings/rooms that I'd sooner destroy than have to tear down the individual machines and move them.

[Doug R.]

I'll move your concerns and points to the development thread, and then report back when they're answered.

[Cogliostro]

Dear comittee. What is the Point, from a player's perspective, of being able to tear down some buildings at a great expense of time?

Nothing to opine against the feature, just wondering if it's the most efficient way to use scarce programming resources, to focus on an evidently pointless thing.

[Doug R.]

- There is a philosophy among the administration that nothing should be permanent in the game. This creates a character-mediated method to achieve this for buildings.
- It is possible to barricade ones-self inside a building for decades and be unreachable. Prior suggested solutions were plagued with complicated problems. This is an easy solution.
- At least with wood, it is more economical to tear down a cottage than to gather wood if you have the tools (666g DOW net). Building times for other materials could be adjusted to make this true for all materials.
-It would be more economical to destroy a whole building and get some resources back from the internal machines that it would be to destroy each machine individually (assuming that this is how it would work).
-It's just really fun to destroy things
-characters are generally bored, and would spend their time tearing down unused buildings in their towns just as something to do

[miirkaelisaar]

Hm, yeah, this would make it impossible to hide from people.. I can see getting annoyed at not being able to catch someone barricaded inside for years popping out and attacking people, but also, wouldn't this mean that if a band of people were chasing you, you'd have nowhere to hide because all they have to do is start a tear-down project and force you out of the building. They wouldn't even need tools or to do the work, just to start the project. It is nice to be able to hide in some situations, especially if you haven't done anything wrong and people just wanna kill you and take your stuff. I guess it's realistic 'cause if you hide in real life someone can tear the building down around you. But it just seems like an easier way to drag people outside without having to break the lock. It is one of the only really reliable forms of protection in Cantr, being able to lock oneself up.

[Doug R.]

because all they have to do is start a tear-down project and force you out of the building. They wouldn't even need tools or to do the work, just to start the project.

-all people/objects/raws/notes are moved to the parent location of the destroyed building upon destruction

[miirkaelisaar]

Alright, that makes more sense. I should learn to read ;]

[Cogliostro]

Imagine a fortress-type building with many inner rooms, and locks carefully created at each point. Somebody had spent a long long time to prepare this defense, but the proposed changes would go ahead and ignore it: just destroy the building itself, which though it takes some time, is an assured thing... You don't have to go through that person's individual locks any more.

Should the presence of locks additionally increase the destruction time, based on the number of closed locks present, and representing how "fortified" the building was, in game terms?

[Cogliostro]

Would players be justified to sincerely hope that the building destruction mechanism will insistently notify people inside ALL ROOMS as to what's being done to their building?

[miirkaelisaar]

Oh, yeah, and will locks give back some iron like the rest of the building gives back wood or stone?

And what Cogliostro said, definitely everyone in every room should be notified. That would be a nasty surprise if you were in the back of your building for too long.