Cantr II Discussion Forum

SekoETC wrote:And it's a bit silly that if you dynamically name a vehicle, you'll be able to recognize it even if the sign was changed.

Why is it silly? My (reallife) car I would recognize even if someone changes the labels (number signs) on it. Especially on cantr where everything is handcrafted its not silly at all.

The downside to requiring tools and a project to label things is that taking a day to label a bottle is not likely to happen very often.

If we are going to require a project to put labels on things, I would strongly suggest grouping items with different times for the relabelling. e.g. small - 2 hours (bottles, boxes and other small things), medium - 6 hours (tools and weapons), large -10 hours (buildings and machines). Or something along those lines. Seems weird that putting a label on my small bottle takes the same time as building a sign for my hall.

Otherwise, I think this would be great. I was looking at making bottles for my medicines and alcohol, but was completely put off by the fact no-one would ever know what was in them. I am hoping, since we have key labelling, that the programming required would not be game-changing?

catpurr, name changing (at least in Cantr) is similar to giving vehicles a paintjob or giving it body work. Same TYPE of vehicle but that one is now different.

Be like if I took your car and then painted it a different color and added a fin then parked it in another town. You'd never know it was yours. Might look similar (staioncar is a staioncar is a stationcar) but you'd still not go, "That's my ride!"

Also: I agree with T.A.F.K.A. Surly's addition to this. It does seem a bit dumb, though could be argued, that putting something on a bottle takes as long as building a very large sign for a house/building/whatever.

Dudel wrote:catpurr, name changing (at least in Cantr) is similar to giving vehicles a paintjob or giving it body work. Same TYPE of vehicle but that one is now different.

I know, but this way it is actually silly when you think about it, not the otherway around. (recognizing the vehicle again)

It is the same as with people.

T.A.F.K.A. Surly wrote:If we are going to require a project to put labels on things, I would strongly suggest grouping items with different times for the relabelling. e.g. small - 2 hours (bottles, boxes and other small things), medium - 6 hours (tools and weapons), large -10 hours (buildings and machines). Or something along those lines. Seems weird that putting a label on my small bottle takes the same time as building a sign for my hall.

Well, a very elegant solution for this problem would be to make a bottle with the label already attached, just like you do it with cars and buildings. That way the first label wouldn't cost any additional time and relabeling could have a fixed duration of let's say one day, which would make it sufficiently difficult to cause mischief.

Piscator wrote:

T.A.F.K.A. Surly wrote:If we are going to require a project to put labels on things, I would strongly suggest grouping items with different times for the relabelling. e.g. small - 2 hours (bottles, boxes and other small things), medium - 6 hours (tools and weapons), large -10 hours (buildings and machines). Or something along those lines. Seems weird that putting a label on my small bottle takes the same time as building a sign for my hall.

Well, a very elegant solution for this problem would be to make a bottle with the label already attached, just like you do it with cars and buildings. That way the first label wouldn't cost any additional time and relabeling could have a fixed duration of let's say one day, which would make it sufficiently difficult to cause mischief.

I do like that solution... if we some day implement "recycling" tools, then we'd replicate the real world situation where it's easier to just make new bottles...

If there's anyone who doesn't like this suggestion, speak now before I move it to accepted.

I like it.

Anyone in programming want to tackle this?

B.M.T. wrote:

That's the best argument.

B.M.T. wrote:

B.M.T. wrote:

That's the best argument.

Lol! That just made my day...

BZR wrote:

I take this as no one in programming wants to tackle this? Or am I being dense?

It was just a little joke.

Personally, I like the idea, but won't have time to implement it soon.