Cancelling Road Projects (and later, working them both ends)

[Chris Johnson]

Chris, could you at least make road projects cancellable in the short term? It really is very frustrating... and not in keeping with any of the rest of Cantr...

I'm sorry no - That could be used for long distance communication so we won't change that until safeguards are in place.

Generally the whole idea is good and should be implemented but not in a piecemeal way

[fishfin]

you could make it that both locations may have the improvement project and if you cancel an improvement project you have to wait a year before starting it again.

[Surly]

I'm sorry no - That could be used for long distance communication so we won't change that until safeguards are in place.

Now hang on, this can be used for long distance communication, but all the machines you can pick up can't? I was told that wasn't a concern when it applied to the worries I expressed over the exact same scenario when suggested by someone else, but when its my idea it is suddenly a threat to the game? That's rubbish... pure and simple. That isn't any excuse at all, unless you take the same measures against the moveable machines we have.

Generally the whole idea is good and should be implemented but not in a piecemeal way

I think you are vastly overestimating how much people abuse the system with things like this... and if they are so eager to abuse the game, making road projects uncancellable won't stop them, they'll just do it ooc... the only people getting screwed over are characters like mine who are successful, and trying to build things like cars and improve the roads.

Why is there such an obsession with penalising success in this game?

I accept that the longterm idea needs plenty of time, but you'll need to put way more work into the excuse for why roads cannot be cancelled before I'm going to even come close to buying it.

Post-script: Yeah, sorry about that... I'll stop ranting now Maybe we could contact the ProgD about these projects in the short-term, get them reversed? This is holding up progress surprisingly badly...

[Phalynx]

Ooooh I love it when somebody crosses you Surly!

[Just A Bill]

This might even work with pies suggestion to allow incremental builds(see "Build on demand" this board). Each side can add resources and work the project to the percent of their resources put in, when the total percent complete equals 100% the job is done, and resources can be redistributed as needed.

[Oasis]

I do not see how Surly's suggestion of being able to cancel a road project that has no resources put on it yet could be used for communication to the other end of the road. (under the current system, no notification would go to the other end) If it does once an entire new system is put in place, then safeguards can be added at that time. Right now, I don't see needing any safeguards for this simple change.

As for your suggestion, Chris, that each end must add full resources, and once work on both ends is completed, resources are returned.......what happens to them? Do they just spew onto the ground for anyone to steal, should they wish? I don't like that idea.

[Solfius]

I think having to have double the amount of resources required to work from both ends is particularly good. I think this suggestion would work well if Pie's "Build on Demand" idea was implemented along side it

[Surly]

I do not see how Surly's suggestion of being able to cancel a road project that has no resources put on it yet could be used for communication to the other end of the road.

The only way it can be used as such is if someone says "keep trying to improve the road, everyday... when you can, do such and such". And to be perfectly honest... the exact same thing can be down with moveable machines, yet noone has complained about that, have they?

As for your suggestion, Chris, that each end must add full resources, and once work on both ends is completed, resources are returned.......what happens to them? Do they just spew onto the ground for anyone to steal, should they wish? I don't like that idea.

I would say the oil would go back to your inventory, and as much stone as you can hold... the rest would spew to the ground. *shrugs* Not too bad, really...

[Oasis]

Yes, if you happen to be standing in town when this happens. It can be years after a road project is started that the job is actually finished. Chances of the person who started that project even still being alive are slim, let alone happen to be standing in that town at the time.

[formerly known as hf]

I would rather a few stolen resources than an unrealistic means of commuincation between both ends of a road.

If changes at one end of a road project are reflected, however slightly, at the other end, this could be used as a means of communication.


I'd suggest that for a road to be upgraded, it must require two projects - one at either end. These should obviously be half the size in terms of resources an times as the current projects. That way, one town can only upgrade 50% of the road, and it would require the completion of the project at the other end before the upgrade is finished.

[Solfius]

I think effectively needing double the amount of resources to work from both ends is a terrible idea.

The only way I can see to do this without having some kind of instant communication is by not needing all the resources at the start. The Build on Demand concept.

That would remove the need to display how the total amount of resources addded so far. It could also be possible to add too many resources, which stops people from checking whether they can add more or not, but to stop the project becoming a black hole you would need to be able to remove unused resources without completing the project.

So in summary, I don't think this can work without the ability to:

++ work piecemeal on a project with whatever resources you have;
++ to add more resources than required;
++ to remove unused resources.

The last point needs expanding: it assumes the first two points, and requires a virtual stockpile for all resources added to projects. (if you can imagine each project has its own virtual pallet of materials set aside for it) You can add more than you need and remove resources from it as well. As work is completed resources vanish from the stockpile as they are used. When the project finishes surplus resources go to the initiator or drop to the ground, which is in keeping with the current system.

This is necessary because if you can add more resources than necessary, you need a way to remove them. This means projects become a potential target for theives, but that isn't unresonable considering resources don't vanish when they're added to projects, but rather they're set aside.

[Solfius]

I'd suggest that for a road to be upgraded, it must require two projects - one at either end. These should obviously be half the size in terms of resources an times as the current projects. That way, one town can only upgrade 50% of the road, and it would require the completion of the project at the other end before the upgrade is finished.

That is the easy way, I didnt see this bit when I first read the new posts.

I don't know whether it is the best long term solution. It certainly requires less effort to program, but I think there are benefits to changing to a build-on-demand system, as well as resource removal from projects.

[Surly]

I would rather a few stolen resources than an unrealistic means of commuincation between both ends of a road.

If changes at one end of a road project are reflected, however slightly, at the other end, this could be used as a means of communication.

I will say this again... there are already many easier and cheaper ways to abuse things in game, like the mixing bowl. Yet noone has been abusing that, have they? That argument against road cancellation is petty and has absolutely evidence to support it, quite the opposite in fact.

I am not going to let this idea be discretely forgotten by ProgD... it is far more important in my opinion to fix things like this that have been broken for more than 3 RL years than bringing in more features...

[Solfius]

is the mixing bowl some kinda of temporal portal enabling you communicate over vast distances then?

[Surly]

Well, unless I am missing the obvious, the only way to use cancelling road projects as long distance communication is "keep trying to improve the road every day... wehn you can, put the plan into action".

A similar practice can be used with the mixing bowl... you can start a project, pick up the mixing bowl and leave... when you can start another project on the bowl (i.e. someone cancelled the original project) you proceed as above. In fact, the mixing bowl would be far more of a threat, if this was a genuine problem...

I'd suggest that for a road to be upgraded, it must require two projects - one at either end. These should obviously be half the size in terms of resources an times as the current projects. That way, one town can only upgrade 50% of the road, and it would require the completion of the project at the other end before the upgrade is finished.

That is the easy way, I didnt see this bit when I first read the new posts.

I don't know whether it is the best long term solution. It certainly requires less effort to program, but I think there are benefits to changing to a build-on-demand system, as well as resource removal from projects.

That also defeats the entire reason for changing the current process, and for a no more realistic or beneficial system. In fact, you'd program a whole lot in order to have a less sensible system...