Cantr II Discussion Forum

Bump

Whats about this idea? Its accepted and waiting for implementation?
Also destroying cabins on ships should be like destroying building. Cabin on ship is just like building in town and create same problem with barricaded inside men.

i really think the best way to structure the dismantling of a multiroom building is to make it such that, you can only tear down a room/structure that does not have a room/extension etc.. inside of it.
this solves the problem of, being in your bunker or castle with many rooms and suddenly from 1 tear down project the whole damn thig is gone.
and also solves the issue of "what do we do about rooms inside the building we tear down"


question remains, do we consider the machines and/or resource piles in the torn down room?

we do have the option that we must remove all the machines as well, or we could just say screw em and let them go to oblivion (second choice gives more gameplay options, if you were just razing you don't care and just tear down rooms, if you were truly stripping down or doing a professional teardown job, you would opt to scavange the machines before taking down the room.

Yang wrote:Bump

Whats about this idea? Its accepted and waiting for implementation?
Also destroying cabins on ships should be like destroying building. Cabin on ship is just like building in town and create same problem with barricaded inside men.

ProgD is working on it, but hasn't succeeded in making it work yet. It's a very difficult project.

Henkie wrote:

Yang wrote:Bump

Whats about this idea? Its accepted and waiting for implementation?
Also destroying cabins on ships should be like destroying building. Cabin on ship is just like building in town and create same problem with barricaded inside men.

ProgD is working on it, but hasn't succeeded in making it work yet. It's a very difficult project.

It is not being worked on. It's a dead project. There differences of opinion on how to implement it are simply too great to settle on a strategy.

So it's not gonna happen because there is no agreement on how? How about a vote?

Henkie wrote:So it's not gonna happen because there is no agreement on how? How about a vote?

If the person that is available to do the work doesn't agree with the implementation, they're either not going to do it or de-prioritize it. You can't force volunteers to do things they don't agree with.

However, in this case, don't believe we even got two people to agree on any one issue.

Doug R. wrote:

Henkie wrote:So it's not gonna happen because there is no agreement on how? How about a vote?

If the person that is available to do the work doesn't agree with the implementation, they're either not going to do it or de-prioritize it. You can't force volunteers to do things they don't agree with.

However, in this case, don't believe we even got two people to agree on any one issue.

Problem is how to implement this because person dont agree that buildings should be destructible, or the way to make it would make fortress obsolete? If its option one, then its hard to make him agree, as its basic of this implementation. If its option two, then its needed to find solution how to do it, to balance it all.
I would recommend destruction of building take same time as building, and all machines inside add same amount of time as they would be dismantled separately. Also every lock, furniture and so on would add same amount of time. This way it would be not so easy to destroy such building, usually it would exceed reasonable time. You would get only half of resources from everything.
Whats are benefits from it? You could do it all at one project, so no need to change project every time when its finished. Also would solve problem with barricaded inside, even if they have sub location to place where they are. This wont help in situation when somebody is blocked inside in sublocation by blocked only way out with full room, unless he is saved from outside.

I would be happy if someone with a key to the stupid door could be the only one able to destroy an empty building for now until other things are worked out. I don't even care about getting the resources back from destroyed buildings, I just want to be able to remove the 30 useless buildings in my town, whehter that means I have to tear down the machines first or not. Could we not implement something to that effect until more could be added to it or it could be altered when an agreement comes up. Would give at least some of us who don't care about the resources and all that a way to get rid of the extra unused areas loading up the screen. It's frustrating in some places

While I would love being able to destroy locked buildings, or any number of the other options, the main problem is buildings sitting around gathering dust. Ones that leaders just lock up to keep people out. Maybe someone went around making everyone houses, maybe it was the old workshop. The point is, if no one's going to use them, they shouldn't be around. If it means getting rid of them, I don't need resources back, just like locks. I'm fine with destroying interior rooms first, and I am willing to tear down machines that actually can be torn down first. If they can't, I'm fine with the time it took to build them actually being added to how long it takes to destroy the room.

Too many towns have an obnoxious amount of buildings and vehicles. Please... if we can't turn vehicles back into parts, at least let us clean up the amount of buildings. I don't even care how long or difficult it is to do it. I'm tired of looking at ugly, old bone huts next to our multi-roomed brick castles. If the technological level of a town has changed, don't force us to keep the old stuff around.

Kelna wrote:While I would love being able to destroy locked buildings, or any number of the other options, the main problem is buildings sitting around gathering dust. Ones that leaders just lock up to keep people out. Maybe someone went around making everyone houses, maybe it was the old workshop. The point is, if no one's going to use them, they shouldn't be around. If it means getting rid of them, I don't need resources back, just like locks. I'm fine with destroying interior rooms first, and I am willing to tear down machines that actually can be torn down first. If they can't, I'm fine with the time it took to build them actually being added to how long it takes to destroy the room.

Too many towns have an obnoxious amount of buildings and vehicles. Please... if we can't turn vehicles back into parts, at least let us clean up the amount of buildings. I don't even care how long or difficult it is to do it. I'm tired of looking at ugly, old bone huts next to our multi-roomed brick castles. If the technological level of a town has changed, don't force us to keep the old stuff around.

Exactly! Some of us just don't care about the resources or the time. Just the ability to do it.

Well, there's not much need on advertising the fact that we want it, as it is accepted already, right?
The thing is, it is probably a lot of work to program this, so the people that actually put their free unpaid time into programming it probably want to make it in a way that is right at the first try and does not need a lot of repairs and stuff later. So that will require some patience of our side... After all, we are not the once that actually have to go through all that programming stuff.

From earlier:

My suggestion:

1.One can destroy a building made of lesser material only(wood, mud, bone,grass)
2.It has to be empty of items, machinery, rooms, people, locks and projects before a project can be started.(as far as I know, completely emptying a building is possible)
3.It requires some tools, preferably more than to build.
4.A event is created, similar to lock picking.(You see man in his twenties starting to tear down Me Bonehut(a brand new bone hut))
5.If No.2 is altered(by entering the building, leaving things inside) the project can't be worked on before the building is completely empty again.
6.When the project is finished, some amount of building material appears on the ground as a byproduct.(like 60% or something)

When this is done, this is partially implemented, and we can continue working out how to fully implement this feature.

Andu wrote:2.It has to be empty of items, machinery, rooms, people, locks and projects before a project can be started.(as far as I know, completely emptying a building is possible)...

Then tell me how for example destroy a radio. Also how this would help working around bug with full room? But still making possible destroy building even in this way could be usefull for some.

Mitch79 wrote:I would be happy if someone with a key to the stupid door could be the only one able to destroy an empty building for now until other things are worked out. I don't even care about getting the resources back from destroyed buildings, I just want to be able to remove the 30 useless buildings in my town, whehter that means I have to tear down the machines first or not. Could we not implement something to that effect until more could be added to it or it could be altered when an agreement comes up. Would give at least some of us who don't care about the resources and all that a way to get rid of the extra unused areas loading up the screen. It's frustrating in some places

partial implimentation for the sake of cleaning up buildings. sounds very logical,
the safest form being the most restrictive. and therefore eliminate abuse
door must have a lock, destroyer must have a key? could work, heck, i do not have a char in a place like this now but have seen them loaded with mud huts in an industrialised society that can import stone and wood with ease. i'd lock a mud hut to tear it down like in some places *coughs*djorf hills region *coughs* plaekur hills *coughs* endless list *coughs* anywhere with damned mud at yer feet *coughs*
and as mentioned, to make a room completley empty, which means removing all machines and attached rooms first!
tear the place down room by room, if we want to have it so you can tear down a whole superstructure be it by a bomb or accumulation of the times of everyhting inside we can always add that implimentation later to it.
if the basics are there, we can at least remodel our homes until it is agreed how unrestricted the changes to the ability will become.
this innitial implimentation would not do anything for war because it would not YET be possible to destroy a building from the outside

if we are worried about getting too many resources back from a torn down room, then set outcome of resources = 0 (no i do not know the coding, just saying)
if it is decided later to actually get back resources, then the number could be changed (i would think that change would not be daunting to do later)
in the initial phase, we would know what we are getting into as players before tearing down a room or building and would be accepting the 0 resources when we begin the tear down because we would know.

the hardest part and only part i could think at this point of that remotly might be of concern is... lets say for example, 37 buildings in city A. joe schmoe decides he wants to demolish his wooden shack building number 12, what happens to the building listing? is the slot saved for the next building built in town? or are all the buildigns 13-37 move over a number to buildings 12-36?

Bump. This suggestion is sweet.

joe schmoe decides he wants to demolish his wooden shack building number 12, what happens to the building listing? is the slot saved for the next building built in town? or are all the buildigns 13-37 move over a number to buildings 12-36?

I think best way is to not change numbers and give a new building number 38. Sometimes numbers are mentioned as part of the building name so shouldn't be altered implicitly.

partial implimentation for the sake of cleaning up buildings. sounds very logical,

It doesn't, because means: really much work done => not many problems solved
There is possibility that there will never be sufficient agreement among the players to expand the system and I don't want to spend my time on unimportant things.

I still think possibility of violent destruction of buildings (with people inside) is the best idea. It should be time-consuming and much less profitable but possible.

It should be possible to destroy buildings with extensions, because it would solve many problems (like barricading in buildings/cabins). And destruction wouldn't be dependent on possibility of disassembling all machines in the game (currently furniture can't be disassembled). With "aggressive" destruction they would be just ignored.

When it comes to % of returned resources or time taken it can be done the same way as disassembling machines: possibility for RD to use default value or type them explicitly in special cases.