Lock deterioration

[Idriveayugo]

There are tons of abandoned locked buildings out there. If we aren't going to add building deterioration any time soon, perhaps a simpler idea would be to add lock deterioration.

I'll leave the specifics of the matter, such as how long the lock takes to deteriorate and how long it takes to repair up to you guys.

[Tiamo]

Locks can be destroyed, so deterioration isn't really necessary.

[SekoETC]

This might belong to another topic but on regions that have no steel (like the Finnish region) it would be useful to have a way of breaking locks in some primitive fashion since there are small wooden carts whose owners have died or wandered off years ago, no one knows where the keys are and there's no way of getting in because there are no resources to produce steel. It's rather unrealistic that vehicles couldn't be broken into with for example a stone axe given enough time.

[Idriveayugo]

Locks can be destroyed, so deterioration isn't really necessary.

Yeah in 3 days if you have a screwdriver, or in 1 day if your lucky with a crowbar (one time i tried breaking into a building, it took 8 tries!).

I'm just saying have locks deteriorate so that people know what vehicles, buildings, and ships are not occupado.

[SekoETC]

So if you go on a resource run that lasts years, your lock would fall apart but the building or vehicle itself wouldn't deteriorate? Doesn't sound very realistic. It would make more sense for the building to deteriorate (although it should take several decades for it to crumple). Maybe breaking locks on deteriorated buildings would be easier than on ones that are brand new, but locks shouldn't be destroyed without someone breaking them.

[Idriveayugo]

So if you go on a resource run that lasts years, your lock would fall apart but the building or vehicle itself wouldn't deteriorate? Doesn't sound very realistic.

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for building deterioration, but it's not being implemented any time soon.

This whole realism argument you state though is flawed. If items made from the same materials as a lock such as an iron shield can deteriorate, why can't a lock?

[SekoETC]

Because you can't repair objects that cannot be picked up. There are no objects that would deteriorate but not be repairable (there used to be but det. was removed from them).

[Marian]

Doesn't sound very realistic.

Who cares?

I'm not saying I even like the lock deteration idea, (a very slow low tech way to break them along with a low tech way to replace them sounds better to me) but I'm getting sick of seeing decent ideas shot down with this as the reasoning rather then anything related to its effect on the game.

Seriously, Cantr would be a lot more fun if everyone on staff would loose their infatuation with the r-word.

[Idriveayugo]

Because you can't repair objects that cannot be picked up. There are no objects that would deteriorate but not be repairable (there used to be but det. was removed from them).

Ah, but that has nothing to do with your realism argument.

[Dudel]

I'm not saying I even like the lock deteration idea, (a very slow low tech way to break them along with a low tech way to replace them sounds better to me) but I'm getting sick of seeing decent ideas shot down with this as the reasoning rather then anything related to its effect on the game.

*nods* Yes, I like this idea. Uber low tech that takes SEVERAL days longer then even the screwdriver.

Stick takes seven Cantr days and is only 50% successful.

Bad example and funny at the same time.

[joo]

...perhaphs a bronze crowbar?

It does make sense that if somebody goes the effort of smelting metal to protect their buildings, it should require a similar effort to be able to undo that.

[SekoETC]

Perhaps a primitive crowbar would only work on vehicle locks and not building locks, since vehicle locks are mostly created for free along with the vehicle itself, while building locks are always built afterwards.

The realism argument may be overused but it would certainly be annoying if locks (without the implementation of repairing them) crumpled into nothingness every ten years or so (naturally all locks would have the same rate of deterioration since there are no records of which ones are being used) and would then have to be replaced while protecting the stuff behind the door from thieves. There would be no way of replacing the lock while the old one is still in existence. Overall it sounds like a major pain in the ass just to give people who are either too primitive, poor or lazy to make crowbars.

If this was implemented, it should also be possible to repair the locks and they should remain functional and present even while they are being repaired. So it would be an activity rather than a project.

I think building deterioration would be a more useful indicator of which buildings are abandoned than lock deterioration, since most places have laws against entering buildings you don't own. If buildings deteriorated (and could also be repaired), you could see which ones are unattended without trying to enter. As far as I know, the problem of what to do with stuff inside after it falls apart is what keeps it from being implemented. But what if deterioration would simply stop when it reaches crumbling? Buildings would still be indestructible but det. status could serve as an indicator of the building's age. Permanent crumbling can be determined later if necessary.