Object Creation Streamlining and Modularity

[Solfius]

Here's something straight off the top of my head:

At the moment each variation of a tool or weapon is a separate object.

What would be nice if things were modular so that you could build, for example, a wooden handle, and the add either a steel or stone hammer head.

That way all the duplicate entries for complete tools would be unnecessary.
The differences in tools could be found by examining the tool using a new "look at" button to find out what the tool is made of, and maybe a comment on its durability relating to the eventual implementation of use related deterioration.

However, this may mean we end up with many different variations on the component parts, which is not what we want. To solve this, I propose that similar components are generalised:
e.g. in the case of the hammer, rather than a wooden hammer handle, you use a short wooden hammer

You would have around three various, the obvious being: short, medium, and long. This would be enough for every item requiring a wooden handle.

The same can be done with other components.

The only items which would have unique entries are those which are truly unlike anything else, and for which no alternative will do. As such, they will be the exception and not the rule, so they will be very rare.

The benefits would be a much smaller build menu making it easier to find what you want (There can be two menus: Components and Complete Objects). Also it would eliminate lots of unnecessarily repeated entries. Possibly it would help improve the database; perhaps someone technical can comment on that.

In game, tool makers could keep a stock of standard parts and make assemble tools to order. This makes trading easier as it's hard to predict what customers will want from you, so by being able to use common components to create objects traders can be more flexible.

Discuss...

(I'm sure something similar to this came up before, so I'll take a look round and add a link if I find it.)

[Hellzon]

So you make a "hammer handle" (or a "short handle"), a stone hammer head, put them in a generic "hammer" project and take out a "stone hammer"? Neato.

Just one thing. I think they should still be named differently once finished. Having to enter a new page to see what the thing actually is would suck as long as Cantr is as slow as it's been lately (and would always suck for those on dial-up or with slow computers).

Also, this opens up the possibilty for different materials that doesn't necessarily effect the tool's efficiency. Ivory handles, anyone?

[Solfius]

It would be a short handle, as having a specific hammer handle would lead to the same situation as now: many different variations on the same thing.

Whether the name is in the text or not, I don't think it matters, as the information would be there in both cases and it's just a matter of where it's displayed.

This would mean that, yes, we can have many more different materials for components, as common things would be usuable for many different things.

A medium wooden handle would be usable for all kinds of items: sledgehammers, pickaxes, brooms, shovels

A short wooden handle would be usable for all kinds of hammer, for chisels, for mallets, for bellows, for files, for sickles, for trowels, and so on

Then you just add the rest of the tool, in whatever material you have to a generic project for that type, and out comes that tool, but made in the material you used.

[Rusalka]

That is a good idea. We could olso define the durability of varius materials (eg wood) rather then defining it for every single item. So if we for example take a look on iron hammer, the durability of the handle is 2000 and the durability of the head is 6000, the average will be (2000 + 6000) / 2 = 4000. And RD don't have to discuss the durability of everything.

[Solfius]

I don't know a great deal about the game databases, but I always got the impression the data structures were a bit sprawling and in need of some normalisation (right term?). I guess with the gradual growth of the game, unless there's some overall framework for implementating those changes things like databases will become less tidy.

But yes, I'm in favour of materials having defined durability, and objects having a durability based upon the average durability of their parts.

In a more complex system it could take into account the different proportions involved in the object to give a weighted average, but I think that overcomplicates the system with little benefit.

[Agar]

All items have the same value for duability, they just have different factors on how fast they break.

It poses interesting ideas, like having the wooden handle wear out and break before the steel hammer head cares to think about rot, so you can make a new handle.

But that also gives you the problem of figuring out how to tell if your bowstring is gonna break on your "used" bow.

[Pie]

I like this. In fact, i like this alot. It would be fun to have a sword with alot of cool stuff. It would be easy to make(i think)

When you look at it you see(something like this... I'm not an expert...)

A sabre <object a>(A as in, multipul objects that you can insert into object a(is that posible? well, a person can dream) either that, or it will be one object <object b> and so on.

[Zanthos]

here is how im pictureing it.

a diamond encrusted steel sabre (now) would look like this (if you could have luxery handles)

(in inventory)
Steel Sabre

(when looked at)
You see a sabre with steel blade <part one> and ivory hilt <part two> encrusted with diamonds. <secondary upgrade>

the blade and hilt could be made in bulk, and assembled, while the encrusting has to happen afterwords (as is done now)

[Pie]

EXACTLY(..... I think....)

[Zanthos]

Well, I was trying to decypher what you were talking about, as I pretty much had the same idea.

keep in mind, the <> text will not show up, i only had them there for the sake of how different items will be pieced togeather. I guess there could be iron, bronze, or steel blades, axe heads, or hammer heads, (and maybe even flail or mace heads) and wood, iron, ivory, ect... short, medium, or long hilts or handles.

[Pie]

Oh. Right. Its just that yours was so much.... more.... prettyer...

[Solfius]

All items have the same value for duability, they just have different factors on how fast they break.

Are you able to explain that, or is it secret?

I thought the way deterioration was meant to work was that each tool had a value which represents the speed it deteriorates at, which I think of as durability.

What I thought would be nicer is if different materials had their own durabilty values which influenced the ways the objects deteriorate.

The modular deterioration is a logical extension of this.

[Hellzon]

Are you able to explain that, or is it secret?

http://www.cantr.net/mwiki/index.php/Rot_and_repair
Not secret at all, seeing as someone submitted it to the wiki. Basically, everything has 10000 units of structure, a set number of structure that wears off per day, and a set number of structure that is repaired per hour if you start a repair project. The two set number for all tools/weapons were even added to the wiki. (Look up any tool there and take a look in the orange box.)

[Solfius]

I see, I never did agree with the amount of information given in the wiki, too much detail...

So, durability is the amount of rot per day, so I think Agar and I are talking about the same thing in different terms.

Therefore, I think the durability should based upon the materials used, and the daily rot for each material should be set in the resource entry, which would affect all tools using that material if changed.

That would make for a more uniform system of rot rather than setting each object individually, the RD only has to decide upon the durability of each material and the rest if worked out by the game code

[Rusalka]

That would make for a more uniform system of rot rather than setting each object individually, the RD only has to decide upon the durability of each material and the rest if worked out by the game code

And more logical - players would be able to figure out how fast something will turn into dust, using knowlage about durability of materials.