Redo Rot

[Doug R.]

I still prefer voluntary recycling of unwanted objects, with some resource return, as a replacement for current rot/repair cycles.

That's certainly a great suggestion, however recycling for resources would have to be made much, much easier than making new. I can make enough steel for a file in 1 hour. I should be able to reclaim the steel from a file more or less instantly. The only problem I see with this is that it doesn't reduce unwanted items if there is no need for the resources that they contain.

Just doesn't get it.

If you think about it, I hope you'll understand why what you suggest is unnecessary. Sleep on it. I can't explain it in any other way or make it simpler.

What is if somebody doesn't want to repair the structure he is in? Bandits attacking a town wouldn't stop to repair it.
I also can't imagine anyone working in a house reattaching some roof tiles in his lunch break. Although automatic maintenance seems not like a bad idea in the other instances, it feels a bit strange with buildings.

Incidental repairs would be negligible, and hence irrelevant.

It is true that my examples in the case of buildings don't hold up as well, and I can't really argue against that.

Quite true for civilized regions.

Quite true for everywhere. If you take the all the items in the game made of valuable resources, those left lying on a deserted islands by deceased explorers would be a fraction of a percent.

What is the purpose within the game of item decay ('rot') and repair?

Jos stated that the goal of rot and repair was to eliminate tool hoarding by making the keeping of tool hoards untenable without considerable assistance. He argued that wealth should require wealth to maintain. The system has failed in this regard, because when it began to succeed, they caved into the players deafening complaints. Having multiple characters that have tool hoards and maintain them easily, I can testify to it's failure.

I.m.o. the main reason for item decay is keeping people busy, doing something useful and rewarding.

People do not consider item repair useful or rewarding. You weren't here when rot was first implemented, so you have a pass for not having an understanding of exactly how pissed the players were over having to repair things. Keeping busy is not a problem. All my characters keep busy without doing repairs. The rot as you experience now is but an ineffective fraction of the initial, effective rot rate.

Item repair is a way of preserving those items that are really important to the owner. It will only be done if repair is considerably cheaper than creating a new item, or if the item is virtually irreplaceable.

My system addresses this directly. Important tools will be ones that are used the most, therefore the invisible repair-in-use would apply most to the most used tools. For these tools, repair is free, and free > considerably cheaper. I am not suggesting the removal of repair projects at all, though, so there will always be recourse for less used items.

Making repair activity automatic on every item used would effectively annihilate item decay, which is detrimental for the game balance.

It would eliminate item decay on items that are used often, which is exactly the items that players would normally be maintaining. I don't see how this would disrupt balance. All it would do is eliminate repair projects for these items, allowing players to do more useful things with their time - which is what the players want. Less-used or unused items would still have to be repaired the old-fashioned way.

A possible way to get rid of the fuss of repair projects would be marking the items (within reach) that the character wants to be cared for, slowing the decay considerably (and stopping it when not being used), at the cost of a percentage of daily activity...It probably isn't worth the trouble.

I agree. It seems overly complicated.

[Piscator]

Just doesn't get it.

If you think about it, I hope you'll understand why what you suggest is unnecessary. Sleep on it. I can't explain it in any other way or make it simpler.

Could you show me where I wrote that? I'm honestly confused.

[sanchez]

I still prefer voluntary recycling of unwanted objects, with some resource return, as a replacement for current rot/repair cycles.

That's certainly a great suggestion, however recycling for resources would have to be made much, much easier than making new. I can make enough steel for a file in 1 hour. I should be able to reclaim the steel from a file more or less instantly. The only problem I see with this is that it doesn't reduce unwanted items if there is no need for the resources that they contain.

Currently we haven't the ability to create multiple resource outputs from one project, so likely all you'd get would be either iron or some form of wood which in my preference would be charcoal. However, I think even 50% bulk reclamation output would be incentive enough for those of us who have hoards of useless tools but who can't bear to let them turn to dust alone. And the projects could not be instant, to discourage sabotage. But, compared to the hours wasted in repair projects, particularly for tools and that have been replaced at a higher tech level, things like wooden shields and bows or dung-forks and pickaxes when you have machines to do the work, it's not a hardship.

And Doug's right, the only way the current rot system could achieve it's goals is if we made rot rates so extreme that tools and weapons disintegrate before your eyes. Nobody likes that. So the compromise left us with more useless projects and just as many useless objects as before.

[Piscator]

I've been thinking a little and Doug's suggestion has at least one great advantage (if I'm not missing an important detail again). It would hardly require any programming. A negative value for used based decay should basically do the trick.

[sanchez]

We can implement reclamation projects as well without ProgD work, in the manner of coins and keys, which was a large part of my initial suggestion, which btw has been dangling in RD for a long time. None of these ideas are really new, but there has been resistance from the people who desinged rot holding up implementation of any alternatives.

It's important to come to some consensus on which problems we are actually trying to solve via rot. Is it only too many unused objects? Is it meant to foster cooperation?

I'd much prefer to see the effort spent by active chars on repairs go to other types of projects such as infrastructure development and the production of expendable resources instead.

[Doug R.]

I've been thinking a little and Doug's suggestion has at least one great advantage (if I'm not missing an important detail again). It would hardly require any programming. A negative value for used based decay should basically do the trick.

There you go...and you made my idea even more practical - I didn't think of that.

It's important to come to some consensus on which problems we are actually trying to solve via rot. Is it only too many unused objects? Is it meant to foster cooperation?

I think attempts at fostering cooperation are doomed to failure. Stripped of moral law, people are inherently self-centered. A gaming environment essentially strips player of moral law, leading to selfish behavior, which has been demonstrated over and over by the problems that various people have tried unsuccessfully to fix over the years (or proposed fixing).

I'd much prefer to see the effort spent by active chars on repairs go to other types of projects such as infrastructure development and the production of expendable resources instead.

Yes, I agree 100%

[Pilot]

In the spanish/german/dutch zone cooperation has been the common for long. Now I'm very happy to see that this cooperation has start breaking language barriers.

[sanchez]

So, our goal is chiefly to get rid of excess objects.

I think attempts at fostering cooperation are doomed to failure. Stripped of moral law, people are inherently self-centered. A gaming environment essentially strips player of moral law, leading to selfish behavior, which has been demonstrated over and over by the problems that various people have tried unsuccessfully to fix over the years (or proposed fixing).

I agree, Doug. Though, I don't think the attitude to rot/repair is selfishness as much as self-preservation. When we feel like we've worked to collect things, we don't want to watch them turn to dust. It's instinct to cling to things that are being taken away from you, whether you need or even want them. Fighting such a process is more important than the objects themselves. That's why people repair bone needles, etc. instead of just replacing them.

Whatever alternative we construct, it should not be (visibly) incremented hourly. It would probably be less painful if each tool were assigned a shelf life in total hours, or total hours used, or better unused, after which you get notification that either the thing needs repair or you will lose it. So the whole process only takes place once in a great while, and is all or nothing instead of constant.

But that's only to make players feel better about it. I would still rather see an alternative that gives people a chance to actively get rid of a stash of unwanted objects. The resources return I don't even think is as important as whether it's a voluntary and active process.

One big question to answer regarding my recycling proposal would be whether the largest number of unwanted and excess items are in the hands of active players who would be able to trade them in for resources, as it were, or whether most items instead are hiding in piles that nobody sees.