Cantr II Discussion Forum

I've seen name "exacavator" somewhere in objects database, but it's probably just an easter egg.

Or, we can just have the destruction project fail.

In some cases it can be impossible to empty parent building enough. Extension can have further extensions and amount of objects inside can be almost unlimited. It would mean that almost successful destruction project can't be finished, so time is wasted without any result.


After some thinking I believe the best thing to do with buildings overcrowded because of extension's destruction is to ignore it. Temporary overcrowding won't cause more trouble than current state of affairs. Somebody who is destroying extension should move all possible objects somewhere else to avoid own troubles. When room gets blocked then destroyers will be able to go outside and perform destruction project again for parent building.
With ships: single hold can store less stuff than ship's deck, so it's extremely hard to cause accidental overcrowding.
But if it happens then we can ignore loss suffered by destroyers, because it was their decision to start destruction. And there will be no damage for people who were trapped inside of hold. Their situation won't become harder than was earlier.
But if it happens then objects must be dragged somewhere else before leaving the boat (if piles are small enough) or we need to implement at least one of suggestions: moving part of pile, dragging raws from outside (especially this one is good). Otherwise piles will have to be moved by staff members. And it's not good idea.

If we allow destruction-related over-crowding, then it can be exploited. Take the following scenario:

Group drags man into building A and locks him in Room C. He starts to break the lock. Group destroys room B inside building A, putting building A over-capacity. Group leaves over-crowded building, man is stuck in room C. Far fetched, you say? Well, what if they mostly destroy room B before they put drag the man into room C, with the express purpose of destroying it in an hour to do this? This would make entrapment a viable combat strategy. I could see a building with dozens of rooms and several mostly destroyed ones, made for the express purpose of handling pirate crews. You don't have to worry about them escaping if they can't.

Edit: Another scenario: Character destroys room, over-crowds building, mis-clicks and heads into an inner room instead of heading out. Is stuck forever.

You are right. Problem is with going outside trough overloaded building. This bug exists in the current game, but it's much harder to exploit. What penalties should be added for entering overcrowded building if we make entering to such structures possible from inner rooms?

What if we just disable all abilities except speech? You can't drop, take, drag, attack, initiate/join projects. You can only move and talk.

This doesn't help solve the current "dead body blockage" bug, but if we additionally allowed the dragging of objects, resources, and bodies, then this issue could be solved in-game.

The downside to this is that it makes barricading unlocked rooms impossible, as anyone can come in and empty out your room. Some players may not consider this a downside at all.

Couldn't you just make barricading from the inside a project? It would hopefully only be used in emergencies if the person doing it couldn't work on anything else or leave the room.

A small material cost of wood or stone might keep newspawns from abusing it...say, 50 grams of wood or 125 of stone for every hour.

What if the spoils of a destroyed room are not moved to the 'parent' room, but directly to the outside? Rooms are an extension to the building, not a partition to an existing room, so there is some logic to this.
This would avoid the overcrowding problem entirely (and provide -some- prisoners a breakout-opportunity ). If you don't want to have things all drop outside you can always remove them before destroying the room.

Tiamo wrote:...Rooms are an extension to the building, not a partition to an existing room, so there is some logic to this....

There is nothing in the game mechanics that dictates this. Some rooms are by name and description implemented as towers or dungeons or even clearings in a forest.

... so always an extension: up, down, open. An extra room always means extra space, it never takes away space from the existing building.

I like your idea.

Tiamo wrote:What if the spoils of a destroyed room are not moved to the 'parent' room, but directly to the outside? Rooms are an extension to the building, not a partition to an existing room, so there is some logic to this.
This would avoid the overcrowding problem entirely (and provide -some- prisoners a breakout-opportunity ). If you don't want to have things all drop outside you can always remove them before destroying the room.

For buildings this sounds right... How about ships? Only possible when the ship is docked to land/harbour?

Tiamo wrote:... so always an extension: up, down, open. An extra room always means extra space, it never takes away space from the existing building.

The logic I was commenting on was that the contents of an inner room should always be dropped outside the main building, not that extra rooms add extra space.

freiana wrote:

Tiamo wrote:What if the spoils of a destroyed room are not moved to the 'parent' room, but directly to the outside? Rooms are an extension to the building, not a partition to an existing room, so there is some logic to this.
This would avoid the overcrowding problem entirely (and provide -some- prisoners a breakout-opportunity ). If you don't want to have things all drop outside you can always remove them before destroying the room.

For buildings this sounds right... How about ships? Only possible when the ship is docked to land/harbour?

Why did you have to go and ruin everything!!!!

Irl ships are deconstructed on land or in docks, so why not in-game too? This means you cannot work on a ship/cabin destruction project when the ship is not docked to land/harbour.

Nice.

by the way - do you have any plans for reducing road levels?