with regards to rot/destruct/repair of buildings/vehicles

[Chris Johnson]

I personally think that to destroy a building, the door should need to be unlocked (as it would involve destroying interior supports and such), and people inside should take significant damage (50% or so) but not killed outright.

You're not the only one The idea of 30 to 80% damage feels right to me

[Phalynx]

Meh....

Its Nerf time!

[Jos Elkink]

Not killing the people leads to all kinds of programming issues: where do you leave them if the parent location is already full?

And the difference between almost dead and dead in Cantr is huge (well, in real life too ...) - you can just eat some healing food and you fix it. That's why only dragging is a serious weapon these days.

Secondly, we're already too careful with everything in the game these days, leading to it's tea-time atmosphere. Shouldn't we change that?

[sanchez]

Secondly, we're already too careful with everything in the game these days, leading to it's tea-time atmosphere. Shouldn't we change that?

No. Not when so much is invested in chars. It's hard to start over. IMO, the end to tea-time should be an internal conflict.

[Black Canyon]

Personally, I have never agreed with assessment that the game mechanics are to blame for "the tea-time atmosphere."

I believe the only obstacle is the player's patience and creativity when it comes to life and death drama in-game.

[deadboy]

Personally, I have never agreed with assessment that the game mechanics are to blame for "the tea-time atmosphere."

I believe the only obstacle is the player's patience and creativity when it comes to life and death drama in-game.

Agreed, and this should be changed

[km17]

okay heres a question, what happens to the machines and projects going on inside the buildings if the building is destroyed, like if your weaving cloth on a loom what would happen to that?

[deadboy]

OMG we can have suicide bombers! If we make bombs makeable, you should be able to construct bombs and bring buildings down on top of your head from inside along with everything else in it, that would be a pretty awsome addition

[The Sociologist]

About the implementation of destroying buildings:

- subrooms will become parents themselves (or subrooms of the main room if the room destroyed was a room itself);
- all goods and people inside the room/building will vanish/die;
- if it concerns a boat, cabins will disappear as well (the boat sinks).

I know this is rather drastic, but if the objects or people just end up outside, it will be ten times more complicated to program, at least, and I'm also not sure it's as much fun. Attacking buildings should become a serious war strategy in the future.

So, don't walk into crumbling buildings ...

Please not. Too drastic. Better would be: The room (and all child rooms) becomes a special kind of room called "a heap of rubble" The event will cause people to take damage but they will not be evicted from where they are. They can still root around in the rubble for resources that had been there.

The characteristics of "a heap of rubble" are: (1) You cannot lock it; (2) fresh produce decays as it would outside; (3) No machines can be built in it; (4) No extension rooms can be built in it; (5) It can be rebuilt into another room again (once upgrading of rooms is implemented in any case--and possibly a bit more cheaply than when starting from scratch).

That's my two cents.

Oh and I was the one who invented the "doll's tea party" slur, I think. But it was never my intention to have otherwise awake characters suddenly go *poof* because their building was under siege from outside and they didn't notice because they were working hard in a nested room inside.

What I wanted to emphasize before (in my Essay on Motivation) is that houses should have addresses, ie occupying particular slots. At the moment they are numbered. That is at least something, though not as pretty as addresses might be. Now, were a building to be destroyed, it would need to leave a slot behind in any case. Remember, the available number of slots should be limited in future else there will never be property scarcity and therefore never a property market. So, were a building to be destroyed, something would have to occupy that numbered slot it occupied before. And "heap of rubble" is a good candidate.

Anyhow, heaps of rubble would be very suitable for romantic trysts among the propertyless classes.

[formerly known as hf]

About the implementation of destroying buildings:

- subrooms will become parents themselves (or subrooms of the main room if the room destroyed was a room itself);
- all goods and people inside the room/building will vanish/die;
- if it concerns a boat, cabins will disappear as well (the boat sinks).

I know this is rather drastic, but if the objects or people just end up outside, it will be ten times more complicated to program, at least, and I'm also not sure it's as much fun. Attacking buildings should become a serious war strategy in the future.

So, don't walk into crumbling buildings ...

I agree - I like this idea, if you have a character in a location being razed - get out.
If you can't - don't get yourself locked up...

It would be a good answer to the hiding away and hit-and-scarper tactics of current...



But...

All characters in all locations which will be affected should get a warning message, once every couple of hours or so (like docking), as the project progresses. (Tough titty if you can't get out)

The current state of repair should be very obvious to all locations affected (the % of damage appearing after the location name in all cases) So that only the foolhardy enter 99% destroyed buildings

There should be a minimum (2/3) characters for a 'destroy' project - but no minimum for repair.


If characters have ample warning of the oncoming danger, and are aware if they're walking into a hall supported by a single thread - well, more fool them if they become Character pancake...

[mcclone]

Perhaps the window, or arrow slit suggestion should also be implemented, giving the occupants of the building a chance for an effective defense. Therefore, we would have the seige (destruction) of the building, defended by internal resistance (shooting, or attacking through the window).

[the_antisocial_hermit]

I really don't like every char dying if a building is destroyed. There should be a chance a char won't. Maybe not a huge chance; maybe a random chance for each char that is inside the building. Not everyone in the OKC bombing died, nor everyone in the towers during 9-11. Those were far more massive building destructions than anything in Cantr would be. I agree with BC.. the tea-party isn't due to mechanics so much as players.

I do like the concept overall, for getting rid of useless buildings or in wartime as a way to injure the enemy, destroy some of their supplies, possibly kill some of their numbers more easily (but not all!).

I don't know how to solve the programming issue of full parent locations though (if it were the main building, how would the parent location be full anyway? I didn't know there was a limit to people being outside...). Maybe stick them outside where they're vulnerable to attack if it's an interior room being destroyed? Dunno how any of that works so much...

[DELGRAD]

I do not like the buildings being able to be destroyed.
If this is to be done I have some sugestions.
1) Buildings taking 2 times a long to destroy as to build.
2) Once a character starts to destroy a building they can not stop.
3) A character destroying a bulding can do nothing else including attacks.

4) moats
5) Barbwire electric fences
6) Mine fields
7) Automated crossbow turrets

Why don't you just add cruise missles and nuclear balistic missles.
Those would surely destroy buildings and vehicles.

I think this is a rediculous idea. Buildings and vehicles should not be destroyable. It is hard enough for some characters to survive animal attacks, worry about dropping dead from a heart attack and now our hard long work to build buildings and vehicles being destroyed. I think that this may drive some players away and yet you say you need more players.
A little counter productive if you ask me.

[Marian]

But it was never my intention to have otherwise awake characters suddenly go *poof* because their building was under siege from outside and they didn't notice because they were working hard in a nested room inside.

Well, I would assume that you would get a notice, like hf said, and anyone who's awake and not actually locked in would have -plenty- of time to leave.

It's not like the people outside are just going to let some random person destroy a building, either.

I think this is a rediculous idea. Buildings and vehicles should not be destroyable. It is hard enough for some characters to survive animal attacks, worry about dropping dead from a heart attack and now our hard long work to build buildings and vehicles being destroyed. I think that this may drive some players away and yet you say you need more players.

Sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree. First of all, why is it ridiculous? People have been wanting a way to destroy buildings for ages. In fact most of the towns I see have way more buildings than people, some of them with ridiculous names. Personally I can't wait to destroy of a few, it'll make me almost as happy as getting rid of unfinished ones.

The only way I could see you being seriously worried about your 'hard work on buildings and vehicles' being destroyed, is if you only check your chars like once a week, and everyone other person in all their towns sleeps even more...and honestly, if that's the case, you deserve to have them destroyed, and those animals your so worried about would get you long before that anyway.

Here's an experiment - try walking into a town and destroying or picking a lock without permission. See how long you last. And that's a short project. People would have way more time to respond to a the destruction of a building.

Also, if you don't like the idea of people destroying buildings at all, why make it impossible to stop?

[SekoETC]

DELGRAD, it's your post that's ridiculous. Automated crossbow turrets? WTF?

Heart attacks result from the PLAYER requesting for character deletion, or clicking the X to delete their whole account. Or if you don't check your account for two weeks then it will time out. But if you know you're going to be away for several days, you can set your account on vacation mode for up to 90 days.

As for animals, most people have either wood or mud around to build a simple house. You don't need much stone for a stone hammer to build a cottage. Animals don't come to buildings. Also you can build shields. I don't know which island you live on... since i've been around mammoths and they were all nice.

If someone starts hitting a wall with a sledgehammer, there will be a hole. The whole building won't collapse unless you destroy enough supportive structures. Therefor manual destroying of a house could not be used as a way of executing prisoners. Because once a hole appears in the wall, and it's big enough for a person to get through, a prisoner locked inside will try to break out through the hole, even if it would mean risking a few blows from a sledgehammer.

Instant collapsing is a different case. If a catapulted stone lands through your roof, there will be no time to react. There will be a hole, there might be a chance of the whole roof or the whole building collapsing, and who ever happens to stand where the stone lands is likely to die. At least they will suffer heavy damage. If the stone lands on a machine, the machine will be crushed.