Progressive decay of Q

[Agrik]

I am not sure you are aware, but those people playing more would still retain higher character stat, even if their items' quality decay. To fix this, similarly to the decay on item quality as you suggested, they would have to add in stat decay, otherwise people who are actively playing more would retain a higher stat.

And I'm not sure what you try to say. As Granger pointed out, stat decay is mentioned in the text. By "exactly the same tempo" I mean "exactly the same tempo as decay of Qs".

So I'm asking you, what would be a good implementation for that, you think, to even out the playing field?

Do you ask me how exactly stats are supposed to diminish? To tick down with intervals depending on how high the stat is. This is described in the text.

By the way, additionally, If they play more, their average item would still be higher quality regardless, and be maintained at higher quality, especially with a big group that is well coordinated. This renders your idea just another chore and tedium to maintain quality and stat, and is applied to all players. This is not a fun game concept, in my opinion (also what led me to say what I said in the next part of quote).

"They play more" and "would still be higher" is a too general statement. There are many ways that can be described as "play more". Some play more actively, some play more time, some played more earlier, and some are playing more for some time now. Decay affects them differently, and is meant to distinguish particular ways of "more" from others. Specifically, those who actively play more would still have higher quality than most others, while those who just spent months occasionally obtaining something may end with items being not so surely better in comparison to an active newcomer.

So your conclusion about chores seems to be groundless. Maintaining Qs and stats is like maintaining your position in the quality race. Both are or aren't chores/tedium depending on how you look at it, the difference is that decay allows to keep this race in the range of natural qualities and in the reach of new or defeated players. Probably it'd even be less tedium, as you won't have to do chores all the time the world exists from its start - instead, only some time before the moment you need to be competitive (e.g. siege).

By reversed, as in item quality you just increased, now going back to a lower value after decay. This is not fun for people, unless there are ways to preserve its value that is not too tedious and realistic in the theme of a "survival game".

The alternative is to have total wipes. They're not fun as well.

Or... well, there is a workaround, as everything is relative... to allow item Qs and stats grow unilaterally by inflating ALL other Qs in the game, including "basic" newbie level, and more than that, constantly accelerating growth of lower Qs. It'd be lots of tedium for the devs, yet I'm not sure there will be no side effects...

As for tediousness of ways to preserve, a progressive scale means that tediousness depends on the level of Q you want to preserve. It's one of the key things. To keep something at a basic level you need to pay attention, like, once a week to fix here and there. You may skip it a couple of times, it won't be a total disaster. Maybe a level this low can even be a bit automated, in a way like a study desk refills curiosities. Higher ambitions will need more, like at least somebody's (from your village) activity every other day, and you may ask yourself why do you need to keep that Q and for what time. Maybe you wish to tame a boar or to hunt for a moose. Top Qs, obviously, can't be kept without top efforts. The point is that there is no fixed level of "common", "higher", or "top". Top level is what other players are able to keep at top efforts, whatever these efforts are.

Food spoilage is one way you can implement "decay" to fit in with the theme, you can slow down decay by storing food in various ways. Tools, weapons, armors breaking with use is another way to implement decay to fit in with this theme, and you can repair it or store it for when you need to use it. Universal decay on the other hand, might not be a very fun implementation of decay for the average player.

I see no trouble in adding something like this to the decay of Qs and stats, as long as it offers only a modest effect that is meaningful only for a casual player. Though I'm not sure if it'd be really needed, due to the nature of a progressive scale.

It is in human psychology that cause us joy and excitement when we get something of higher value in a game, especially in an RPG game. When we see our numbers going down with time, it is inherently NOT a fun thing to see and experience, no matter how you implement it.

The trouble is that numbers are virtual. While players may wish to see them increase (though not everybody would really crave it after thinking), it's kinda addiction. While any developer may yield to players' wishes for addiction, it will be pointless. I have an opinion that games are supposed to have purpose, to teach something, to show something, to allow to try something — but pumping happiness directly into clients is not in this list. So I don't see importance in increasing game values for the sake of increasing them.

As for your comment on world reset. While that is true, what matters in the context of the game world, happens when the game world is still active. If it wipes, then it wipes, but if it's still up, and people are still playing, then it is extremely relevant that the rule of the game remain fun and engaging for those who are still playing.

A wipe affects the game not only at the moment it happens. It affects the course of the game before, when people get the feeling there will be a wipe soon. Even more, it affects players at all times. When people know that everything they make is to be wiped in a year or two regardless of their actions (!), it affects their decisions. Their emotions. I know people who left the game precisely because of this, and I'm not going to think their leave is a valid reason to discard their opinion.

An "effective curve" is the solution a lot of games implement instead of a decay mechanic. An effective curve basically mean at the higher number you go, the less overall effective each point after will give it

I see. Unfortunately it doesn't solve the problem of natural objects becoming irrelevant, and TBH it doesn't help much with problem that the starting point falls behind the race, becoming further and further from competive level each month.

---Addition---

I can argue that progressive decay can still hurt newer players that are up against people dedicated enough to nolife their way toward having better gear and stat than them.

Exponential scale is chosen to prevent this specifically. Numbers are to be tweaked, so it may be -1Q in two weeks at Q30, for example, if -1Q a week is too much. It's not about destroying what people had, it's about people settling at the level that represents their activity. They aren't going to be hurt by sudden decrease of Qs, because they couldn't get to that Qs (by themselves) in the first place. Until they have sharply reduced their activity, of course. And until they've got too elaborate thing from somewhere else.

That wouldn't be fun either... because the competitive people are working harder to stay competitive now, and the casuals would still get their ass beat...

By whom? The gap between casuals and top would be smaller, much smaller. My idea is to "wrap" (or "warp"?) all the quality race into the range of natural qualities. And I'm not even sure if there is water or forageables over Q100...

You're generalizing a bit too much. I'm not promising to solve all the problems, I'm targeting particular ones. Decreased and rearranged gap would allow some people, who are stopped now by the requirement to make up for the time passed from the start of the world, to compete and engage in activity. Is may be quite a number though, if to compare online counter in the fresh world without the gap and, for example, now with Qs well over 500s.

In term of the psychological effect that stat/quality decaying and/or staying stagnant have on players, I still stand by it;

I don't dispute that the effect exists, but I think it's not the only kind of players. While some of them really prefer to grow numbers, i.e. to engage in a race of numbers, it's not a universal trait. And a persistent-world MMO very, very badly combines with a unilateral race. At best it would need huge amount of devs' work, mostly new content for new levels of race while ditching content made earlier because of becoming "irrelevant".

I would like to hear more from you why an effective curve isn't a good way to balance and even out the playing field between midgame and endgame players.

It may be a good way to balance mid and top, but it isn't a way at all to balance players' items and nature, or to balance basic starting point and an actual level of Qs.

Just want to remind that top quality isn't comes from nowhere. Well organised groups of people put a lot of effort into their industry. And everytime noobs comes into H&H they wants everything here and now.

I get your reminder, and want to point I didn't suggest here anything about obtaining items.

There is nothing to fix here, just go and play. There is no problem get decent character at this stage of world.

Then I wonder how you found out that there is no problems for anybody in any circumstances. And how you ruled out the possibility that the cost of some "no problem" way may be not worth the result.

[Lyrroth]

yes lets keep trying to cut off head instead instead of helping other to catch up. people should unite to overcome. not to find atrificial mechanics to bring them down for effort and that will not change anything because learning curve will drop instead of rising

[pppp]

...endless quality growth...
...have a decay...

You are right but yet your solution is shit. The problem is perception of decay. Losing something while doing nothing (note: "while" but not "because of") is bad because it forces people to keep playing to avoid losing stuff HAHAHA, like the current system does not force at all. It feels like Sisyphus work which was considered a cruel punishment from gods.

A better looking solution would be introducing instability, so high q items would come with a high chance to break. IMHO it is easier to accept a cruel RNG which acts only while playing than an inevitable turning stuff into shit while being on holidays.

yes lets keep trying to cut off head instead instead of helping other to catch up. people should unite to overcome. not to find atrificial mechanics to bring them down for effort and that will not change anything because learning curve will drop instead of rising

Well, the point is to not let the head rise too high because otherwise there will be problems with ceilings designed too low. And since there is no limit for head rise ATM, there will be always some "ceiling problem" moment sooner or later. Unless we agree that resets are necessary and are part of the design, which did not happen so far.
If you can not see "ceiling problem" in game, think soloing trolls as an example. It should not be possible.

[Lyrroth]

in almost any game you sooner or later overcome PvE threats and PvP is the main source of danger

theres too much unfinished and unpolished elements and decay is worst possible addition to it all and EVER.

[DPblH]

Then I wonder how you found out that there is no problems for anybody in any circumstances.

Because I'm playing this game instead of trying to fix that doesn't requires a fix.

[pppp]

It is in human psychology that cause us joy and excitement when we get something of higher value in a game, especially in an RPG game. When we see our numbers going down with time, it is inherently NOT a fun thing to see and experience, no matter how you implement it.

The trouble is that numbers are virtual. While players may wish to see them increase (though not everybody would really crave it after thinking), it's kinda addiction. While any developer may yield to players' wishes for addiction, it will be pointless. I have an opinion that games are supposed to have purpose, to teach something, to show something, to allow to try something — but pumping happiness directly into clients is not in this list. So I don't see importance in increasing game values for the sake of increasing them.

I completely disagree here. The ultimate purpose of a computer game is to provide entertainment, with exception of educational games and some niches where entertainment acts as a pill sweetener. If a game fails to provide entertainment in mid-term (and preferably in short-term too) then such a game is abandoned in favor of a better performing one. That being said, losing a balanced match can be an entertainment too, but being a victim of slaughter certainly is not (for most people at least). Playing a game which provides only frustration is dumb.

in almost any game you sooner or later overcome PvE threats and PvP is the main source of danger

But which one gives more fun total ? From the perspective of sum of the players rather than from a perspective of single PvPer ? Would PvE give more or less fun if all threats are shifted to the category "easy" from the day one of playing because of ketchup mechanics (TM) ? How the feeling of achievement is affected if a newbie is given a discarded hq weapon to instaslaughter a bear (or even if he finds it in beach trash) ?

[Fostik]

Everything in this game: playstyle, mechanics, gameplay and community meta not compatible with the thing, that quality of items and objects will sometime get down. This will ruin some core essentials of this game.

[MagicManICT]

The ultimate purpose of a computer game is to provide entertainment, with exception of educational games and some niches where entertainment acts as a pill sweetener.

Yeesh... this is way oversimplified. For mass consumption games, I'll agree with you, but there can be a whole lot more to a game than basic entertainment or education.

[Agrik]

yes lets keep trying to cut off head instead instead of helping other to catch up.

Head would still be there. I do not try to cut it off, I'm pushing it back to fit the game. Pppp wrote exactly what I meant. And please note, this "head" is not something players own and thus entitled to demand keeping untouched, it and its growth are a part of the mechanics the game offers.

As for catching up, I think I wrote it already twice: as everything is relative, there is another way, to boost every thing, every Q, every stat, and every game mechanic using Qs, based on top Q in the game. Only it's much more tedious for the devs, and I'm not sure it won't have unexpected side effects.

people should unite to overcome.

To overcome what?

and that will not change anything because learning curve will drop instead of rising

Can you elaborate?

The problem is perception of decay. Losing something while doing nothing (note: "while" but not "because of") is bad because it forces people to keep playing to avoid losing stuff HAHAHA, like the current system does not force at all. It feels like Sisyphus work which was considered a cruel punishment from gods.

It isn't Sisyphus work until you expect the hill to be endless. Until you expect to be able to endlessly increase damage of stone axes, durability of plain leather armor, and so on. It isn't much real thing, so I think it mostly comes from existing H&H experience. Like, negative opinion about decay isn't universal, just more or less typical for "racing" players here. And I hope to overcome it by making it obvious that the hillside becomes impossibly steep sooner or later, thus there is no urge to roll the boulder until you have a reason.

I want to point that the decay of quality does not destroy items. All the base, all the equipment, all the household would only become less durable, less sharp, less nutritional, etc.

A better looking solution would be introducing instability, so high q items would come with a high chance to break.

Maybe. It would help with overflowing quantity of items as well, though I'm not sure about breaking items. There may be a need for it, just not sure.

IMHO it is easier to accept a cruel RNG which acts only while playing than an inevitable turning stuff into shit while being on holidays.

You don't lose much until you're at the top. And if you're not at the top nor aspiring to be (or what do you expect then, trying to reach the top heights by going on holidays?) quality does not matter that much. Again I want to point a thing written in the text: "new" quality is not an analogue to existing one. You don't have to grind it, you don't have to be much afraid of losing it, because you can start catching up at any moment you prefer. I suppose many of those who dislike the idea, do so because they imagine decay in the current situation when Qs and stats are to be heavily grinded day by day to reach hundreds and thousands. With progressive decay there won't be Qs of many hundreds at all.

think soloing trolls as an example. It should not be possible.

I think even soloing a bear in a hand-to-hand combat is not a right thing. We have too many animals made irrelevant, that's a gameplay ditched, because of overpowered characters. There are many different animals created, but for a top char they are roughly equally insignificant encounters.

in almost any game you sooner or later overcome PvE threats and PvP is the main source of danger

Even if it's true, it doesn't mean it's a good design. After all, did you prefer this game or a different "almost any game"?

theres too much unfinished and unpolished elements

I agree, there likely is, but I'm not sure which one is really more important. I think it's for the jorb&loftar to decide.

Because I'm playing this game instead of trying to fix that doesn't requires a fix.

I asked "how", not "why". A personal experience is not a ground to say it's the same for everybody, because, for example, everybody can't be at the top half of a power ranking at the same time.

I completely disagree here. The ultimate purpose of a computer game is to provide entertainment, with exception of educational games and some niches where entertainment acts as a pill sweetener.

Can't agree, if you used "entertainment" here as a synonym for happiness. Games offer a playing field, game objects, which are designed to represent some aspect(s) of reality. It may be not education in direct sense, yet it's a reflection of reality, so it supposes intention to educate or self-educate about that aspect of reality. E.g. chess is a simplified way to get ideas of what can happen and what may work in a battle from strategist's point of view. Then there are games representing social interactions or laws of physics in a simplified manner. Education is often mixed with entertainment, yes, but I think mostly because it happens naturally.

Then, the course of a game supposes that there can be desirable and undesirable outcomes, successes and fails, even if there are no outlined winners and losers. That's why games can't be total happiness. That's why an enterprise focused on creating unconditional happiness to everybody can't be a game.

If a game fails to provide entertainment in mid-term (and preferably in short-term too) then such a game is abandoned in favor of a better performing one. That being said, losing a balanced match can be an entertainment too, but being a victim of slaughter certainly is not (for most people at least). Playing a game which provides only frustration is dumb.

The fact of entertainment may be different for different people. So yes, unhappy players may leave the game, but this does not invalidate the game as long as there is stable base of people who are entertained.

[Lyrroth]

Head would still be there. I do not try to cut it off, I'm pushing it back to fit the game. Pppp wrote exactly what I meant. And please note, this "head" is not something players own and thus entitled to demand keeping untouched, it and its growth are a part of the mechanics the game offers.

As for catching up, I think I wrote it already twice: as everything is relative, there is another way, to boost every thing, every Q, every stat, and every game mechanic using Qs, based on top Q in the game. Only it's much more tedious for the devs, and I'm not sure it won't have unexpected side effects.

its faster to boost q gain than come with artificial mechanics to bring down top for effort.

To overcome what?

overcome the topguys.

Can you elaborate?

instead of coming up with plans and stuff it will become a waiting game where stubborn top people get killed by tedious mechanic of fighting artificial ceiling or it will become ridicolous enough that everybody will be able to catch up eventually too easy and too fast making death even less punishing. after all youre giving artifical mechanic to punish people reaching for the top in exchange of... what? q can be both and achievement and a score like in pacman.after all people like to push for bigger numbers since its almost what video games were about since almost beginning in form of highscores, have seen such similar mechanics developed in other games and its never ends well for competetivity. even if we aim for immortal world seeing higher numbers tickles that pleasure part of brain. why do you think a lot of mmos goes up with numbers to ridiculous amount instead of scaling? log functions for gains are far superior to this

Even if it's true, it doesn't mean it's a good design. After all, did you prefer this game or a different "almost any game"?

why would it be bad design? how long you expect to do the same shit like killing trolls in group without new content? this way as it is now, devs can push new content with new dangerous stuff while making the game capped, caps developers as well n a way. not to say that games must evolve and decay mechanics arent evolve friendly unless you want to be bloated with more unused content outside of larping.

I agree, there likely is, but I'm not sure which one is really more important. I think it's for the jorb&loftar to decide.

the core itself is important and core game isnt friendly for any sort of player decay shit