Claims left by non-playing characters

[Granger]

This thread makes me twitch. I read the same suggestions two months ago. Search function, please.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10996

Hmm... I've never understood just why people have such an aversion to new threads with old content. If we want to discuss an old topic without reviving an old threat (which is apparently bad too) then I don't see a problem with creating a new one.

Because in case the old topic is reused when the problem is still there loftar might see that there is a thread about something with plenty of pages - and might decide to fix it.

Which might not happen in case there are plenty of topics, but none survive for some days.

Also it helps to cut down the clutter in C&I, wading through the same stuff ever and ever again just wastes time.

So no excuse for being to lazy to look through search - or read the stickies.

[DigDog]

If we want to discuss an old topic without reviving an old threat (which is apparently bad too) then I don't see a problem with creating a new one.

Reviving an old thread isn't bad per se, if you bring new content into it then go ahead and revive as much as you want. That's way better than having three threads about the same topic that repeat the same stuff over and over again, which is currently happening here.

Like Granger said, one thread with six pages is more likely to gain attention from the devs than three threads with two pages.

[Breakneck9]

Obviously when the dev's have the time or inclination to change it, then they will. More important things are on their plate right now. They have disregarded several threads about this issue now obviously because it is not needed yet or cannot be done.

Question: If there is no more decay for walls and buildings on the claims of villages, does this mean that a village with 0 authority will not have it's idol decay?

[DigDog]

Question: If there is no more decay for walls and buildings on the claims of villages, does this mean that a village with 0 authority will not have it's idol decay?

I think I read in that update thread that the no decay rule doesn't apply on villages with authority below 50k. I could be wrong though.

[Demiwar]

I say they just add a type of personal authority to personal claims and treat them like villages. You run out of authority and it starts taking hits.

[AnnaC]

I've posted about this before, and I feel like adding some more about this subject; especially with the new decay system (which I have mixed feelings about). I know at the moment this isn't that much of a problem since a world reset is inevitable, as a reset would obviously fix this. However, to have any persistant gameworld maintained indefinitely, this issue will need to be addressed and managed.

Quick summary statement: my general feeling is that the gameworld is constantly changing and evolving, and I think static personal claims do not fit with an ever-evolving world.


I'm not sure if decay as-is is the answer, as the decay rates can be a bit random (and more draining than reasonable). You need to balance how long a player can be away from a game that is fair to them, and fair to the people who are active still in the gameworld. I think there should be a decay or atleast a loss of Personal Totem influence if it's been an inactive site for a month or more, however. If you're leaving a game like this for over a month without making prior arrangements, why should you expect all of your in-game property to be all hunky-dory? That's stupid. You wouldn't just pack up and leave your home without making some sort of arrangements with your neighbors, and expect everything to be just fine if you return in three months (RL->game time comparison). Also the consideration that with the RL example, we have the infrastructure of "civilized" society to help maintain static stability; in the gameworld of the Hearthlands, it's still primitive wilderness, where the static stability doesn't fit as well.

Again, I don't think decay as it is in-game (or was) is the answer; decay hurts casual players more than anything (those players who can only get on maybe once a week for an hour or so), because when they do play, they have to devote all of their time to the grindy boring tedious maintenance of decay (unless they have a no-lifer OCD friend like me to tend their property ). So yeah, what alternates are there? Hard to say really.

Perhaps having personal claim authority or something similar would work; or maybe some way to track how active a Hearthling is. Of course tracking Hearthling activity could be worked around by macros potentially, but there will always be that aspect and it shouldn't be used as an argument against a system that works on other levels. But I think if a player is inactive for a long time, I think their Hearthling's personal claims should not be such an obstacle to those players who they left behind. I know atleast 6 claim sites around my village (outside far enough that to revoke them would take considerable effort at the moment, not too mention the ridiculous authority cost), that the players have abandoned the game since July or earlier, and are never again coming back.

Why the hell should a personal claim that is no longer protecting anything because everything that was in it has decayed, and will never again have it's Hearthling active, still project a protective influence? It is not that hard to set up a personal claim, in time, material, or LP cost. But it's exponentially greater work to remove an abandoned one.

So I definintely think personal claims should become inactive over time, if their Hearthlings are inactive.

You can always add ways to buff claims to last longer if you expect to be inactive from the game for an extended period (making prior arrangements). Perhaps you could do things with numen, like make a protective ancestor statue, or maybe a special prayer to fortify the claim totem. Stuff like this would be nice, but also would require some improvement with the property management interface than it is currently in-game. And again this is for later times especially since we know the worlds are not inevitably persistant at this stage of Haven & Hearth.



For a quick-fix now that might fit with the current interface and management systems, what about if whenever a "Revoke the Priviledge!" action is activated on a totem, the game checks the totem owner's last activity, and if it was over a month ago, greatly decrease the authority cost to revoke that claim? So personal claims that are obviously inactive are cheap to get rid of (provided a village influence can reach the totem)? This should be helpful, as you can't get your personal claims removed by griefers without considerable effort still, but it makes it easier for legitimate claim revoke reasons; which in my opinion are extortionatly expensive when compared to the ease of building claims. (It's easier to grief a young burgeoning village with a well placed personal claim, then it is to build a grief village to remove a legitimate active personal claim.) Another thing with this potential fix, is that you wouldn't need to track decay hits all the time for a claim, as the only check will occur when that action is activated.


Sorry, this was a bit more long-winded than I expected.

TL;DR:
1) this isn't as bad an issue now since there are still inevitable world resets at this stage of H&H development, but it will be at later stages of development
2) the world constantly evolves and changes, so why are personal claims, especially abandoned ones, static and unchanging?
3) personal claims are much easier to set up than they are to remove if abandoned (ridiculously easier compared)
4) Revoke The Priviledge action should cost much, much less Authority if the Hearthling owner of the revoked property claim has been inactive a month or more (real-time).

[Wolfang]

IMHO Claims should indeed decay after a time of innactivity.

[Zerrata]

This thread makes me twitch. I read the same suggestions two months ago. Search function, please.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10996

Hmm... I've never understood just why people have such an aversion to new threads with old content. If we want to discuss an old topic without reviving an old threat (which is apparently bad too) then I don't see a problem with creating a new one.

Because in case the old topic is reused when the problem is still there loftar might see that there is a thread about something with plenty of pages - and might decide to fix it.

Which might not happen in case there are plenty of topics, but none survive for some days.

Also it helps to cut down the clutter in C&I, wading through the same stuff ever and ever again just wastes time.

So no excuse for being to lazy to look through search - or read the stickies.

I see... all valid points. Thanks for the heads up.