How can it be "often used" if it's been in storage

[west]

The more I see the deterioration system, the more I wish it would change.

There are storerooms filled with "used" and "often used" goods that, to be strictly accurate, haven't been "used" at all.

My wishlist for item deterioration:

1) rather than have all items of a certain type deteriorate at the same rate whether used or not, have the rate at which an object deteriorates be dependant on several things: How often it's used (duh), where it's stored if it's not used (an object in a store room should deteriorate less quickly than an object in someone's hands, which should deteriorate much less quickly than something left on the ground.) and ... well, that's basically it. I think "natural aging", which is what happens how, is pretty unrealistic (not to mention unfair).

AND/OR
2) have deterioration status be more accurate:
brand new/new/used/often used/old/crumbling doesn't make much sense.

I don't think that's a logical progression...a sabre that's "old" but kept in storage (and probably sharpened/kept oiled) is going to be better than a "brand new" sabre that's been outside on the ground for a year, or even one that's been used say, 20 times.

Especially because as it stands now, a character can have a crossbow they use every day, and it'll reach "crumbling" at the same rate as one lying on the ground, or one in storage that's never used, or one someone holds but doesn't use.

Bah to that.

I approve of item deterioration in theory but disapprove of its implementation.

I love you, programmers, and I do appreciate what you do. It's just that in this instance I think it'd be better done some other way. I realize this may be hard to program. That's why it's a wish list.

edit: There's supposed to be a "?" at the end of the topic name. I don't know why there's not.

[Jetlag]

Yup, I quite agree. I'd very much welcome item deterioration based on use.

[nitefyre]

Also note that item deterioration is resetting (paused), for the time being.

[The Sociologist]

Also note that item deterioration is resetting (paused), for the time being.

What do you mean by that? It was manually reset once. Are you saying they're going to reset it every time?

[The Sociologist]

Yup, I quite agree. I'd very much welcome item deterioration based on use.

No. That's not why you have item deterioration in games.

[Cookie]

Or you could just reflect that its not actualy using them which makes them deteriorate. Its there age. For example: brand new/new/old/aged/ancient etc.

[The Industriallist]

On my theory that we're now in the transition to a new, rather lower resourced era in cantr, I think the timed degredation isn't a bad idea, since it wears away the immense hordes that keep things out of balance.

But independant of the actual state of the gameworld I agree that items ought to degrade based on their environment and use, ideally.

[Surly]

On the contrary, I think that it would cause a major step backwards in the advancement of Cantr, and cause a much bigger imbalance than the current one. Sure, the stockpiles would disappear... which would be fine, if it was still possible to make items at the same speed. But that isn't the case. All it will do is cause the general wealth and productivity of Cantr to collapse. If you want to destroy the history that Cantr has and start everyone on a level basis fine... but stop couching it in soft terms and just say you want a reset. That's the only way to gain perfect balance. And will totally suck, in my opinion.

Anyway, it's hard enough to progress at the moment without kicking Cantr players when they're down.

[Solfius]

Yea, I agree with deterioration in principle, but the implementation just doesn't sit right.

I think use/exposure based deterioration is the way to go.

Like rotting food outside, until you pick it up and put it in storage or a building. Then a little when it's being used on a project, but unfortunately how do you tell which tool is being used on a given project?

[The Sociologist]

On the contrary, I think that it would cause a major step backwards in the advancement of Cantr, and cause a much bigger imbalance than the current one. Sure, the stockpiles would disappear... which would be fine, if it was still possible to make items at the same speed. But that isn't the case. All it will do is cause the general wealth and productivity of Cantr to collapse. If you want to destroy the history that Cantr has and start everyone on a level basis fine... but stop couching it in soft terms and just say you want a reset. That's the only way to gain perfect balance. And will totally suck, in my opinion.

Anyway, it's hard enough to progress at the moment without kicking Cantr players when they're down.

But that was the whole point of my poll question in the General thread. If you're going to implement deterioration--and I support that--then productivity needs to improve.

Too many people have it ass-backwards, in my opinion. They are attacking deterioration because productivity is too low. They should be focusing on low productivity because deterioration must happen.

[nitefyre]

It resets automatically until a fixing alternative can be implemented, I believe. My beliefs usually do not lie far from the truth, either.

[rklenseth]

Item deterioration is based on use and time. Both are two different factors that are added up at the end of the week to determine what happens to the item.

[west]

That doesn't really answer why items in storerooms deteriorate (relatively) quickly. It hasn't been more than a month or so since the last deterioration reset and there's already 'old' and 'often used' things that haven't been used at all. I have yet to see an item break down faster than another of the same type, no matter whether it's used or not.

Regardless of the mechanics of how it works now, I still don't like it.

I think the age of an item should be seperated from how much it's deteriorated. You can have an old-but-sharp sabre, after all, if you sharpen it once in a while or it wasn't much used. You can leave a new bow outside for a month and it'll be ruined, while with a little TLC an old one should last you decades.

[rklenseth]

I can't give away how long things last but bows will be the first thing to go due to the strain placed on limbs and strings.

When we first started deterioration, the use hadn't been programmed yet but we could still set the value so use might not be a factor as of now but you would have to ask programming about that so it could be possible that deterioration is only determined by time right now.

[west]

I can't give away how long things last but bows will be the first thing to go due to the strain placed on limbs and strings.

When we first started deterioration, the use hadn't been programmed yet but we could still set the value so use might not be a factor as of now but you would have to ask programming about that so it could be possible that deterioration is only determined by time right now.

Um...bows are typically kept unstringed until used. I see no reason why a bow in a storeroom would be left strung. (stringed?)

Hell, most people out in the wild unstrung their bows during travel, unless it was a dangerous area. In any case, spare bow strings anyone?

I don't throw away my guitar every time I break a string.

Just a thought