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

[Agar]

*starts feeding tomatoes to the buildings*

No one has seemed to touch this subject as of yet, so I'm going to repeat myself.

Are buildings going to rot?

Sociologists idea about rubble is neat, but I don't think my opinion about that matters.

If you're really worried about people tearing your buildings down, you must not be very popular. Are you expecting people to put torches to your house? Any place that has laws will have new laws about destroying buildings, probally just tacked into the same line as don't break locks. Just having the ability to deliberatly destroy a buildng doesn't change anything if no one is doing it.

I can think of several I want to take out right now though.

All the other issues people are having with this are a secondary to me compared to knowing if buildings are going to rot. That's my direct question, that's the only think I want to know. A yes, or no would be great, I am realistic and expect something non-commital like "We're discussing that" or "RD has been talking that over but not making any inroads" or a good "Not yet" that will keep us all paranoid.

called it

[Chris Johnson]

Building (and vehicle) rot is still being discussed

It's not necessarily going to be implemeted but it is being considered

[SekoETC]

I don't think buildings tend to collapse without external cause (like too many people entering) even if they're old. So if buildings are going to crumple on their own, it should take hundreds of years before they finally collapse. But something that is badly maintained might be more easily broken by human means.

[T-shirt]

It's very nice the repair function has been programmed already, but the deterioration rate should not be show until implemented. If my buildings don't rot, there's no need to show they're brand new. Just confusing information.

[Marian]

I'm not all that crazy about the idea of buildings crumbling by themselves, but I guess I'd be okay with this:

1. any building that rots if that is decided to be implimented should do so so slowly that the place could last at least an average lifetime(for wood) and longer for stone

I think the type of building should be taken into account to. Shacks should decay faster then cottages, (About the same speed as mud huts, probably), and log cabins should be about the same level as stone. A hall might last longer than a building, and things like coaster harbors should last just as long if not more.

[Jos Elkink]

My personal opinion - not official policy! - is that I'm kind of ambivalent between "we already have too much repair stuff which is boring" and "stone buildings should have a serious advantage over cottages". So I would kind of like cottages and mud huts to deteriorate, but not stone buildings.

Of course the buildings would also differ in how fast you can destroy it, or how much damage a cannon or catapult bullet would do.

[SekoETC]

Even if they wouldn't really deteriorate, something that displays the age would be nice. Depending on the area humidity, moss and vines would start growing on walls and would need to be torn off. The growth speed would be highest in jungles, second highest in forests, third highest in grasslands and zero on deserts and mountains. Not sure about beaches and hills. After years of growth, the vines would block the door and opening it would take an hour. If the door was already open, it could not be closed until the vines have been torn off. Vines might weaken the structures but they still wouldn't collapse without external causes.

[Agar]

My personal opinion - not official policy! - is that I'm kind of ambivalent between "we already have too much repair stuff which is boring" and "stone buildings should have a serious advantage over cottages". So I would kind of like cottages and mud huts to deteriorate, but not stone buildings.

Of course the buildings would also differ in how fast you can destroy it, or how much damage a cannon or catapult bullet would do.

I call a building holding over three metric tons compared to a cottage holding less than one ton a big advantage. If they're tougher to knock over, all the better, but they already have an advantage on scale with the effort and technology involved in building them.

[Sicofonte]

Mi granito de arena:


I like the requirement of being accessible (unlocked or without lock) the room to be destroyed.

A room extension is supposed to be outside the original walls of the container building (this is clear since the capacity of a building becomes increased with extensions).
Then...

An extension or building should be destroyed before the container building and only if all the extensions inside it has been destroyed.
OR
When starting a destroying building/extension proyect, all the extensions after the one being destroyed will be destroyed (the time required will sum up the time needed for each extension)

And therefore:
All the resources and people (*) inside the destroyed building or extension will appear outside the building (this is consistent with the idea of the extensions being outside the container building's walls).


(*) The stuff can dissapear, or can be reduced, for example applying the rot corresponding to 10 days, or 20... or 50... I don't know what will appear more logical to the players.
The people, of course, could suffer some damage. I like the idea of 70% +/- 50% (so 20% people would die).

[Jos Elkink]

Seko, you often have cool ideas, but you tend to forget one important part of game design: the trick is how to implement cool things that are very simple to implement and very consistent in design. Simple is better. A simple thing like "it takes an hour to open the door when the vines..." takes hours and hours to actually implement. Deterioration of a building would take, in comparison, about ten minutes. And it would be entirely in style with the rest of Cantr.

Not suggesting the latter - it's more a comment in general. I saw in several threads suggestions by you of this style, and they are nice and fine, of course, and feel free to make them, but don't expect many of them to get implemented, because for that you need to think about simplicity rather than about bells and whistles ...

[sem]

Speaking of bells and whistles...

There's a difference, I believe, between a room that's a building in its own right, and a room that's just an extension. The rooms that are buildings should probably be able to survive the loss of the parent rooms as per your original post. The rooms that are extensions should probably be destroyed with the parent.

[DELGRAD]

I must apologize for my earlier post. I was in a bad mood and should not have reacted so badly to this idea.

I still do not like it.

My bigest concern is where I have a character in a remote area with few people ever coming through. There are two other character there, but they are usually traveling. What happens when someone with better equipment comes and decides to destroy my building. I do not have the equipment or healing foods to be able to stop the destruction of my building. Not very likely to happen, but...

[Brimstar]

Rot depends on weather. A wood building in a rain forest will rot faster than anything in a desert. Except, of course, when there's a flash flood in the desert. And even a stone building can come down in a hurricane, tornado, or earthquake. Not that any of those things happen in Cantr. Yet.

[Surly]

I like the requirement of being accessible (unlocked or without lock) the room to be destroyed.

That is an absolute 100% must, with the requirement of no lock (if you can't afford a crowbar and a screwdriver, get out of the demolition business). Otherwise we're going to have loads of started demolition projects on buildings still in use

I have to say I hate the idea of rotting buildings, and quite frankly I agree more DELGRAD. The first thing that needs addressing in Cantr is the skills system, not the implementation of something that will make life just that little bit more complicated.

[Sicofonte]

My bigest concern is where I have a character in a remote area with few people ever coming through. There are two other character there, but they are usually traveling. What happens when someone with better equipment comes and decides to destroy my building. I do not have the equipment or healing foods to be able to stop the destruction of my building. Not very likely to happen, but...

Currently, a pair of criminals could show up in your town, drag you into their vehicle, break the lock of your building, stole all your stuff, build a new lock, and let you die locked inside.
The suggestion being discussed would require a crowbar or equipment further rare, so your char would be in the same risk with or without this being implemented.

And yes, skills system must be redesigned. Step by step.