A Plea for Decay (Character)

[Aceb]

But having my precious 200 against 1000 is better than having like 100 instead of 200 while they have 1000. It's like double punishment.

With 0,025% of absolute levels (not LP/FEP consumed for them) lost every ingame hour it would have taken 37 days to decay from 200 to 100.

With the difference that they wouldn't have 1000 (but most likely less) and you would be able to grind up to them should you decide to do so.

Also I don't care that they have 1000. Numbers and stats are not everything. That's why I socialize.

I don't get why you, since you don't care about numbers anyway as you write, argue against stat decay?

Because I can and because, my perspective might change. On the beginning of this world I could compete with bigs guys in Q grinding conquest until I hit low clay quality barrier.

Also, Still, big guys would have to stop playing and decay doesn't touch them much. Makes it rather highly annoying but not stopping them in any case.

Stat decay is imho worst possible outcome of handicapping big guys, both because it would require them to stop playing and it would more punish those who do not play everyday. If You're on the top and want to remain there, why would You stop? Yeah boredom is an option thats why I guess some might implements / get bots or whatever.

Or I would twist it around and make it that everyone else gets some % bonus development towards biggest people instead of decaying.

[loftar]

Right, I think I get what you're saying.

In a way, I guess you can look at it as a level-cap, but a "soft" kind of one; one that can be negotiated with, as Jorb likes to put it. I don't necessarily hate the idea of a level-cap that doesn't necessarily mean that you're "done" with a character just because you've reached it. But it's still a level cap.

On the other hand, your figure of losing 0.025% of attributes per in-game hour means that, if you stop playing for a month, you'll come back with a character with roughly half (~55%) of the values he used to have, and everything around you that you previously made is of such a quality that you'll taint it just by looking at it. It also means that anything you eat or study is never an investment into your character; it's just a temporary debuff. That doesn't sound particularly fun.

I see two ways we could possibly move forward with it, however.
1) If we were -- and that's not to make a definitive statement on that -- to reintroduce level caps, I probably wouldn't mind considering making it so that the level cap is a particular level beyond which attributes start to decay, but they wouldn't decay back below it. I think I like that kind of level cap better than the hard, static one. Perhaps. Would consider, at least.
2) I wonder if there isn't some way to just turn the math around, so that it doesn't feel so egregious. I'm sure you're all aware of the WoW tired vs. well-rested debacle, and that how just turning the values around made it all so much more subjectively palatable. I feel like it should be possible to do something similar to stat decay, but I can't really think of what.

[Luanes]

Stat decay is imho worst possible outcome of handicapping big guys, both because it would require them to stop playing and it would more punish those who do not play everyday. If You're on the top and want to remain there, why would You stop? Yeah boredom is an option thats why I guess some might implements / get bots or whatever.

Granger said that the stat should decreased based on PLAY TIME. I guess it would be doable for skills instead of stats, preventing farming bots . Still, doing it would cut so much of the "fun part" of the game, like the games on CF and creating art on the world.

Edit: Granger said in-game hour, I got the wrong idea. Still, change my point as another discussion for this topic hahaha

[skltnk]

if you want to have an everlasting world without whipes - stats/word decay is The only elegant solution. You can either do this or another 10 times more complex and less efficient way. You can also make it eternal in it's current state...but in 2 years only retards (aka "big boys") would still play it.

[loftar]

if you want to have an everlasting word without whipes - stats/word decay is The only elegant solution.

If you want to present this as truth, please prove the absence of any other solution.

[Luanes]

Well, for an everlasting world, I guess food FEPs should give at least more than one level. So if someone start on an already developed world it would need less units of food to "catch up" a little faster to the middle. It's quite hard to make money if you're just starting to buy hundreads of high quality food.

[skltnk]

if you want to have an everlasting word without whipes - stats/word decay is The only elegant solution.

If you want to present this as truth, please prove the absence of any other solution.

Seems that if I'd tell you that the god doesn't exist you would reply in the same kind of manner.

Got me though..

*Probably the most elegant way.

[Ysh]

I think system where stat become exponential hard to raise is equivalent to system where stat decay exponential higher as it go up more. Only different is in former systems, the casual player do not feel that he have lost something.

[Adata]

I feel stat decay would be horrible for people who like to play slowly. When I finally would get so many stats and if I want a break (and sometimes I do because I want to try something else, I leave minimum animals, my crops don't rise in quality etc) I would come back to nothing... It doesn't sound fun.

I don't think stat decay would hit people who like to grind anyway and play a lot, it is more of punishment for people who sometimes have some real life business and can't play all day unlike active people or who want to take a break.

I don't feel stat decay would add up positive things for my game play experience, it would make quality of life worse. I would like to quest or meet people instead of grinding to same level again. I like current system of stat retention.

[loftar]

Seems that if I'd tell you that the god doesn't exist you would reply in the same kind of manner.

Which isn't necessarily a bad argument, mind you.

That being said, given some certain set of assumptions, it is certainly possible to prove the absence of various things, such as the absence of an end to prime numbers given only very universal assumptions about arithmetic.

Even so, however, I can present at least one alternative mechanic which would in many ways fulfill the same purpose, but wouldn't be "decay" per se, and as such disprove the uniqueness of decay as a mechanic. To wit:
Character aging and death is a commonly proposed mechanic. As an alternative to that, one might consider a character's "levling ability" to grow worse with time, asymptotically reaching zero. His stats would never decay, and he would never reach a point where it's impossible to level further up, but it would become easier and easier for younger characters to overtake him. At some point, it would make more sense to die and inherit, to level further up from there.
I'm aware, of course, that you could argue that inheritance is actually just explicitly triggered "stat loss" and thus decay in different clothes, but even so it wouldn't be decay per se. If anything, I myself like it more than decay just from an aesthetic perspective.