Building Destruction

[SumBum]

Imagine a fortress-type building with many inner rooms, and locks carefully created at each point.

This is partly why I'm more in favor of requiring things be destroyed inside before the building can be demolished. I know that I've said there are buildings I'd rather demolish than clear out but that was somewhat pointing out an issue. It would be a benefit but could also cause problems. At the very least, make it so that inner rooms must be torn down first. If an inner room has an extension, then that extension must be demolished first, etc.


As for the hiding thing, the point that Doug made about preventing people from hiding is valid in cases where the char is actually barricaded inside. If a crowbar is required to tear down a building then it would be faster to just break the lock to get to the person. Those who are barricaded inside cannot be reached even if the lock is broken, so this presents a feasible solution to that issue.

[Darigan]

Will the destruction time be affected at all by how many rooms are in the building or will it just be a base time dependent on what type of building it is?

[Greek]

-destruction time is the sum of the base building construction time + (sum of construction times of all sub locations put into some math formula so it's less than the sum of its parts). This keeps destruction times reasonable. When you tear a building down, a lot collapses under it's own weight.

Yes, it will be affected.

[Snickie]

I think people and tools should suffer some damage if they're inside the building upon destruction.

[Doug R.]

(causing resource loss or personal damage is too controversial and will just get this held up in committee).

[Cogliostro]

SumBum is on the right track, methinks. It must not become too easy to demolish a whole building irregardless of its inner structure.

[miirkaelisaar]

Yeah! If I build a huge castle I want it to take forever to destroy ^ ^

[Kelna]

Hmm... perhaps extensions could be tacked on to the outside building's destruction time, but interior buildings would be "kicked out" in the same way items laying around inside would be? I know they usually act as just another room, but I imagine their structures are still more complex than an extension's. This way, yet another project would have to be created in order to get the person hiding in the nougaty center. You still keep the aspect of multiple deterrents that multiple locks pose, and it's a more complex job than just setting up one destruction project and having at it.

[Bowser]

Whats the goal here? You can always rename a building and sell it. No reason to destroy a building.

[Cogliostro]

Bowser, I understand it makes the Comittee feel good, because they think nothing should be permanent in Cantr.
I'm with you, though, repeatedly pointing out the Pointlessness may help them recant from that unnecessary idea.

If you could just ask someone, "why exactly should nothing be permanent in Cantr?" the answer will, I bet, involve vague intimations about how the database may grow to infinity if it isn't, or that there is too much stuff produced and nothing gets consumed or goes away. Really though, it's a misguided attempt to make the gameplay less boring and empty by making the gameworld more boring and empty over time.

[Kelna]

It's ridiculous to have 10 bone/grass huts sitting around a town without any purpose, because trade's only recently picked up enough that a shared apartment is possible for the town. Not many people would choose a hut over an extension. And what happens when you buy a building and take a look, only to realize the previous owners had some convoluted blueprint they were following, and it really doesn't serve your needs.

Towns grow and change because the people do. But as it stands now, if someone made a poor creativity choice hundreds of years ago, you're stuck with it. The whole point, is to give players the power to create a town as they see fit, and really make it their own. It's customization.

[Addicted]

I know of buildings I would tear down in some towns so I get customisation and aiming for a theme, look, or feel.

I know of buildings I would not want torn down. To me they are works of art and epitomise cantr.

Then I'm scared of leaving my remote towns to collect a resource to find the buildings and machines we spent so many decades making are gone. As player numbers decline, mine need to do this more to progress. I know this also dereases the risk of scavengers and salvagers. But it's disheartening enough to have the locks broken and the goods gone without the whole town wiped out.

I want the freedom and the control.

[Fingersmith]

In general I like the idea of being able to destroy a building. Destruction and rebuild is always a part of life. However I think there should be a few limitations to it especially regarding people living inside.

So here are my ideas:

-The way i see it there if someone alive is inside the main room or any of the inside rooms/extensions the projects should not be able to start or continue if it started and then someone entered inside. Its the same as in real life. Its not acceptable for the buldozers to start tearing down buildings with people inside. if there are sleepers inside you can always drag them out first and then move on to the destruction project.

-Also for destroying buildings I think specific demolition tools should be implemented like Cutters, pulverizers and grapples and maybe to demolish a stone building should need more advanced tools than to demolish a grass hut for example.
That way its not only more close to rl it also deters people from demolishing a building just for a quick profit. Demolitions should be part of the whole town planning .

-If deteoration of buildings is implemented before the demolition also there could be a relation on how long it takes to demolish a building in relation to its condition. That way a brand new building stone building might take 28 days (same as for building it) whereas an old building could only take 5 days and a crumbling one only just 2. So people would have to choose all the time betweeen repairing a building or demolishing it. Having to take decisions makes life and the game less boring

-Finaly the resources one would get from inside machinery after demolition to be a very small amount in relation to the amount one would get from disassembling those machineries one by one. Again that is closer to rl , a lot of resources are being wasted in rumbles and also deters demolishing a building when it would be more beneficial in terms of steel and iron to disassemble a couple of machineries instead in order to get some resources.

[SekoETC]

I think it would make sense if extensions took 3/4 the time of a main room to tear down, but if you want to make it faster, sure, that makes things easier. Although then you might as well make the destruction time shorter for the main room as well.

I think it would make sense if people inside would suffer a random amount of damage as long as it was less than 100%. If someone has someone locked in a building, I'm sure they could hurt or kill the person in less the time than it took to tear down the building, so I doubt anyone would use it just a means of intentionally hurting a person, unless that person was hiding behind locked doors and couldn't be reached.

It would also make sense if wood or grass buildings could be burned, although it would be hard to justify people getting out of that alive.

[SumBum]

This idea is not so frivolous or useless as some are assuming. There are towns that have so many buildings the screen takes awhile to load. Even in the towns' booming time, there were still more buildings than chars. It does become a functional problem after awhile. Imagine trying to scroll through all that (especially when you add in vehicles, too) on a mobile device. You put it in the laws not to build more but people still do. Seriously, there are some towns that could give away 5 buildings to every citizen and still have some left over.

The reason it needs to be allowed for destruction to occur while someone is inside is to provide a solution to a mechanical problem. It's not always possible to get inside a building to drag the person out.

I do agree that the resource return should be small. Maybe even less than half. I don't see building destruction as something that can happen in a few days. It's not really going to be all that profitable, in my opinion. Thieves would likely prefer to spend 1-4 days breaking a lock than 20+ days destroying a building.