Fractional Distillation Stack

General out-of-character discussion among players of Cantr II.

Moderators: Players Department, Public Relations Department

Post Reply
User avatar
the_antisocial_hermit
Posts: 3695
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:04 pm
Location: Hollow.
Contact:
Contact the_antisocial_hermit

Postby the_antisocial_hermit » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:16 am

Oh, okay.
Glitch! is dead! Long live Glitch!
Remember guys and gals, it's all Pretendy Fun Time Games!
Top
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:07 pm

EDIT: This post has little/no reference to the fractional distillation stack, just to something said previously or this thread.
wichita wrote:And don't get me started on buildings. I would love to make a ton of changes to make them more colorful, but Tircqi was a metropolis before I started playing the game. Might be a bit late to really make a difference to the people that are posting on this forum.
This comment really bothers me... if it "might be a bit late to really make a difference" why are RD still bothering with implementations? Surely its one or the other... it either does make a difference and should be encouraged and worked on, or it doesn't and you should stop complicating things.

Cosmetic changes/implementations should be much more encouraged than changes like fuel, which undermines one of the basic concepts of Cantr.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Top
User avatar
Solfius
Posts: 3144
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:31 pm

Postby Solfius » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:55 pm

The Surly Cantrian wrote:Cosmetic changes/implementations should be much more encouraged than changes like fuel, which undermines one of the basic concepts of Cantr.


Could you expand on what concept that is, please?
Top
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:00 pm

What I was referring to there was the fact that for 1800 days, there was an accepted rule than vehicles did not require fuel. While I am not arguing that that is in any way right, I am arguing that it was a commonly known and accepted concept; it was in many ways a "Cantrianism", which is to say a bizarre Cantr-specific rule similar to the way Cantrians do not need to drink to survive.
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Top
Talapus
Posts: 1452
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 9:05 pm
Location: Montana

Postby Talapus » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:52 pm

A rule? There have been plans for fuel for a very long time now. I know that Jos had written some of the fuel code back in 2003, but it has just taken us this long to finally get it finished.
Top
User avatar
Surly
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:33 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Surly » Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:50 pm

There have been plans for free movement for even longer, doesn't change the fact that implementing that would change one of the fundamental concepts of Cantr: the limitation of locations and roads. It's just wrong to claim that because there have been plans for fuel for a long time, that its implementation hasn't changed a long-standing accepted aspect of Cantr.

Also, just because Jos started on the code in 2003 does not mean fuel was a good decision. *shrugs*
Formerly known as "The Surly Cantrian"
Former CD chair, former MD chair, former RD member, former Personnel Officer, former GAB member.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest