Dissasembly

Threads moved from the Suggestions forum after implementation

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Dissasembly

Postby Doug R. » Mon Nov 09, 2009 11:54 pm

From the discussion of fuel implementation.

If we allow engines to be disassembled, we may as well allow all objects and machines to be disassembled. Does everyone agree? Let's discuss specifics that will need to be addressed.

-components should have the same deterioration state as the original.

-built objects should have the deterioration state of the most worn component

-You need the same tools to disassemble as you do to build

-not buildings or vehicles (at this time)

More?
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
BZR
Posts: 1483
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:44 pm
Location: Poland

Postby BZR » Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:34 am

Doug, this is a completely different suggestion. Disassembling engines and all machines, which are constructed from only one object is different then disassembling all machines and objects.

Imagine following problems:
- some objects are constructed from many objects and resources
- some objects are constructed from different objects (like telescope, which needs lens).
- many objects consist of subproducts, which need not to be repeaired (all of the weapons). It could be a free method to store as many wepons as possible, without repeairing them)
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Doug R. » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:15 pm

Ok. However, can you implement the dissasembly of engines in a manner that would allow us to easily adapt it to other objects in the future?
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
Piscator
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 6843
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Known Space

Postby Piscator » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:36 pm

The biggest problem I see is that we can't have projects with multiple outputs at the moment. If that would be possible we could probably extend the code to machines quite easily, but I was under the impression double outputs were a highly difficult task.
Pretty in pink.
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Doug R. » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:09 pm

Piscator wrote:but I was under the impression double outputs were a highly difficult task.


I have no idea why this would be.
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
Piscator
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 6843
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Known Space

Postby Piscator » Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:25 pm

Well, me neither, but that's what I heard (or remember to have heard). I guess we better wait for someone with actual knowledge of the code though.
Pretty in pink.
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:48 am

I'm actually not especially bothered by disassembling everything, but presumably we could use the engine removal code to make it possible to really customise vehicles?

What I mean is, removing the engine gives you back engine parts and allows you to build another engine. Could we not use a similar system with, say, wheels? Allow cars to have just one engine/set of wheels/seats (for resting?)/clutch and so on. I think this would also allow a much more realistic deterioration of vehicles when we get around to that, as replacing the gearbox is alot more of a common repair then general repairs to the whole vehicle...

I also think what we should do is alter the engine building project to include some raw iron/steel. Then, when you remove the engine you only get the parts and lose the iron/steel. That would provide a material cost for changing engines without actually altering current code at all.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Doug R. » Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:08 pm

Interesting idea.
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:14 pm

Any news on the potential disassembly of engines?
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Dissasembly

Postby Doug R. » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:27 pm

As this is partially implemented, moved to implemented.

Can we get a warning message, like when locks are broken?
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
SumBum
Posts: 1903
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Re: Dissasembly

Postby SumBum » Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 pm

[quote="Doug R."]Can we get a warning message, like when locks are broken?[/quote]

Seconded. This is a good idea.
User avatar
Piscator
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 6843
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Known Space

Re: Dissasembly

Postby Piscator » Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:27 pm

A "You see ZW starting disassembling XY." and a "You start disassembling XY." message are ready for translation. If they are not shown yet there might be a bug somewhere.
Pretty in pink.
Snake_byte
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:12 am
Location: Quebec, Canada

Re: Dissasembly

Postby Snake_byte » Mon Mar 01, 2010 3:15 am

I was thinking of there maybe being the possibility of building disassembly now?
But perhaps make it available to Machinless, roomless, itemless, lockless, and personless only buildings and extensions...
Image
My old banner ;)
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Dissasembly

Postby Doug R. » Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:15 pm

It's in the cards. However, buildings being completely different, the mechanism pretty much has to be written from scratch.
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
Eferska
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:49 pm

Re: Dissasembly

Postby Eferska » Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:16 pm

I know that I am but one player, but this new disassembly stuff now has me paranoid with a few characters. These characters live in towns where there is a building, or buildings, of public access that allow for public use of machinery. The thought that some newspawn or random traveller could just pop into one of these buildings and start taking everything apart really worries me.

But here's where I stand: If you allow for the dissasembling of machinery, why not allow for the cancellation of projects that are halfway finished? In RL, if someone was to meddle with a machine, and I caught them, I would simply repair the machine as is. I wouldn't have to fully dissemble it before re-assembling it. In my opinion, this dissembling process should only be allowed if the project can be cancelled in the middle of being finished.

Return to “Implemented Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest