Redo Rot

[Doug R.]

So, first rot was implemented, and then players complained because they were repairing all the time (I still dispute this, but whatever), so now rot has been castrated to the point of impotence.

The reason people complained was because they had to repair as a separate action. However, what if item repair was inclusive in the use of that item? Why can't we just assume that using an item also entails keeping it in good order?

I'm really thinking of this for use on machines, buildings, and vehicles. Buildings and vehicles would just assume to be maintained for the length of time someone is in/on it. Machines would be maintained for the amount of time someone's using it to make something. Same for tools. About the only thing this wouldn't work for is weapons and shields, since they are used so infrequently.

Truly abandoned buildings, items, and vehicles could actually fade away into nothing as it was intended for them to do. I know that rot on buildings and vehicles isn't possible yet, but there are towns with so many damn vehicles, and no one knows who owns them, yet they just sit there forever unused. We need building and vehicle rot!

[Dudel]

Agree buildings and vehicles should rot but just like in real life they should rot <b>REALLY REALLY</b> slowly.

[Piscator]

Errm, wouldn't that mean that the duration of a project would be increased by a percentage depending on the type of tool you use? What would happen if I would collect 10 grams of apples? Would I automatically repair my knife for an hour after the project is finished? Or would the amount I gathered be decreased by some percents to account for the repair effort?

[DylPickle]

I don't understand really how that would work for machines...

Wear should come mainly from over-use of a machine, like an industrial drill for instance. The drill would have to be shut down periodically for some quick maintenance, wouldn't it? I wouldn't want to replace a bit while the drill is still cutting into something...

[joo]

Hmm, a good idea, but it possibly needs a bit of refinement... there's something... at the edge of my mind which I can't quite grasp at the moment.

All I'm saying is that it wouln't exactly work to have it as simple as using or being inside something...

Anyway, nevermind for now.

[Doug R.]

Agree buildings and vehicles should rot but just like in real life they should rot <b>REALLY REALLY</b> slowly.

I'm not sure about you, but today cars last about what, 10 years tops, much less if you don't get regular maintanance, and much much less if they just sit idle. Yoda's hut was completely gone in the time it took Luke to come back (mud hut). Currently, there's no point in making a log cabin, but if they rot a lot slower than a wood cottage, suddenly, they're useful. Just some things to think about.

Errm, wouldn't that mean that the duration of a project would be increased by a percentage depending on the type of tool you use?

No, projects would work as normal. The repair would simply be assumed and be applied silently in the background.

For this to work, usage based decay would have to be eliminated.

All I'm saying is that it wouln't exactly work to have it as simple as using or being inside something...

Why not? When projects tick, the game applies an hour of repair to the vehicle/structure if someone's in it, or to the machine if someone's using it, just like a project, but it's invisible. This would be problematic for tools, since only their presence is required and not an active participation. Something else would have to be figured out for them.

The theory behind this suggestion is that:

1) Players hate repairing things but...
2) Things need to decay
3) Characters do things all the time between project ticks, so it's assumed that you're not actually working on the project for an entire hour -there's room to do other things, like organize your storage, peek out onto the road for a missing comrade, hold a private indoor meeting, or polish your carrot harvester.

We're just taking a necessary feature that the players hate and moving it into the background where it won't bother anyone.

[BZR]

You are going to eliminate tools decay, aren't you?

...or you mean that for example drilling for hematite project should take not only time and oil but also rubber etc for spare parts?

[Piscator]

I don't get at all how repairs should be performed in the background. Either you have to invest some time to repair the tool that is added to the time of the project or we assume that the tools you use are "magically" repaired in your spare time. But then we could eliminate rot altogether.

[Doug R.]

I don't get at all how repairs should be performed in the background. Either you have to invest some time to repair the tool that is added to the time of the project or we assume that the tools you use are "magically" repaired in your spare time. But then we could eliminate rot altogether.

I'm not sure how I could describe this more clearly than I already have, but I'll try again.

My proposed system would assume that maintenance is inclusive in the use of an object/vehicle/building at no extra time or material cost.

Collection times are in no way realistic, so why is it acceptable that it takes a day to collect 150g of grapes with a knife, but confusing to suggest that you can get 150g of grapes and sharpen your knife in the same period?

I'm cutting grapes, and I suddenly realize my knife is getting dull, so I pull out my whetstone and give it a few passes to sharpen it back up.

I'm drilling for hematite, and I notice that the gears are locking up, so I stop momentarily to add some lube.

To suggest that my idea is the same as eliminating rot misses the whole point of this suggestion and of rot in general. Rot was meant to eat away unwanted items and to encourage cooperation by large companies, because they suddenly had tons of tools that needed to be maintained, so they would, in theory, need to hire people to maintain them.

This backfired because 1) players don't want to waste time repairing things and 2) there was a perception that no one was available to repair for pay.

By making repair inclusive in use, you eliminate these two objections and still maintain the purpose of the rot mechanism - to remove unused things- and we could move back towards reasonable rates of rot.

[Piscator]

Why didn't you just say that you want to eliminate use-based decay? Or do you mean that a tool will be brand new again after using it?

Anyway, gathering rates would have to be adjusted to take the repair effort into account. A bone knife would have to be significantly less effective than a steel knife because it's harder to maintain. How would that work with non gathering projects? Sewing with a iron needle would have to be slightly faster than sewing with a bone needle, because it needs less maintenance.

I much rather keep the current system and increase the rot of items lying on the ground outside drastically to get rid of unwanted or lost items faster.

[Doug R.]

Why didn't you just say that you want to eliminate use-based decay?

For this to work, usage based decay would have to be eliminated.

The reason I didn't just say it is because that's not what my suggestion is - eliminating it is just a necessary side-effect of my suggestion.

Or do you mean that a tool will be brand new again after using it?

When projects tick, the game applies an hour of repair to the vehicle/structure if someone's in it, or to the machine if someone's using it, just like a project, but it's invisible.

Anyway, gathering rates would have to be adjusted to take the repair effort into account.

My proposed system would assume that maintenance is inclusive in the use of an object/vehicle/building at no extra time or material cost.

I much rather keep the current system and increase the rot of items lying on the ground outside drastically to get rid of unwanted or lost items faster.

This counter-suggestion fails on two levels:

1) Of all the forgotten items of "value" in the game, the amount of items of "value" laying about outside can effectively be rounded down to zero because they will have been picked up by someone else.

2) This still doesn't divest a character of the need to "waste time" on item repair, which is the only way rot can be moved to reasonable levels without incurring the player's wrath.

[sanchez]

I still prefer voluntary recycling of unwanted objects, with some resource return, as a replacement for current rot/repair cycles. That gives an incentive to get rid of unwanted objects from the dbs, and doesn't generate the same unproductive projects over and over for the same active players.

I like machine rot if implemented to make them stop working on a temporary basis, especially harvesters and drills. Creating limits for resources on a location is interesting, but too severe if implemented in an absolute sense.

[Piscator]

Anyway, gathering rates would have to be adjusted to take the repair effort into account.

My proposed system would assume that maintenance is inclusive in the use of an object/vehicle/building at no extra time or material cost.

No need to get red. What I meant was that the rates would have to be adjusted to take the different repair efforts into account. There is no need to change anything at the rates with standard tools, but tools from materials of lesser quality would need more time for maintenance, so the gathering rates of those tools should be considerably lower to keep the balance.

When projects tick, the game applies an hour of repair to the vehicle/structure if someone's in it, or to the machine if someone's using it, just like a project, but it's invisible.

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.

1) Of all the forgotten items of "value" in the game, the amount of items of "value" laying about outside can effectively be rounded down to zero because they will have been picked up by someone else.

Quite true for civilized regions.

[SekoETC]

If items fell apart as resources once they deteriorate then it should be pretty easy to implement an anti-repair (breaking) project, which would make the item deteriorate until it falls apart. But such a project should be cancelable. I don't know what's so hard about canceling repair projects, could it not just apply the partial repair (or demolition) that has been done and then end the project in a similar way that it ends when it has actually been finished?

[Tiamo]

What is the purpose within the game of item decay ('rot') and repair?
I.m.o. the main reason for item decay is keeping people busy, doing something useful and rewarding. There should be some balance between creation of items and destruction of items. Since items cannot be destroyed outright, decay is the only destructive factor in the game, thus is very much needed. As is decay of machines, vehicles and buildings.
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.

Both functions are implemented adequately, though not perfectly, in the current system. The only real fault i see is that items can be repaired indefinitely. Item repair should slow the decay, not undo it entirely.
Making repair activity automatic on every item used would effectively annihilate item decay, which is detrimental for the game balance. Repairing items should be a conscious choice and should have a price.

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. All the player has to do is marking the item, there would be no need to monitor the decay of items and start repair projects at the right time.
This procedure would complicate the software of project handling and computing item decay considerably though, which might not be a good idea considering the state of the software, the server load and the current lack of ProgD capacity. It probably isn't worth the trouble.