pppp wrote:Taking a vacation will be punishing under character decay scheme.
terechgracz wrote:Granger wrote:One of the reasons why I decided against a level below which the decay stops is that this allows to pre-produce alts that can be hibernated (idiocracy style) till they might be useful.
Another reason is to attach a maintenance cost to alts, which at the moment doesn't exist as currently you bring it up to the needed level to eg. forage stuff and it'll can operate till the end of the world without any further need for LP or FEP.
Which are both things I would like to kill off as a side effect of this suggestion.
That's nice thought but, in my mind i'd want being said that X is your midpoint of game, you won't decay untill you get there. Let's say this X be such to allow you to kill boars, bears, overall get standard industry going. This would mean quality from that level would be mediocre but quality that goes above that point is getting really valuable items because of industry going on. This would allow most people feel safe for their stats but still forcing 'big bois' to give more and more effort.
Alts which are on that X level are useless untill you shove another thousands feps so you have to keep your stats because you'll stop being able to produce valuable goods.
Shipright wrote:The threshold after which decay takes place should be dynamic. Make it the median skill level of the entire world population active within a certain timeframe. This way what constitutes a "big boy" and subject to decay is relative to the overall world development and what constitutes a newbie that needs the crutch of the non-decay threshold expands as end game players push the median higher. A late game influx of new players may lower the median, but such a phenomenon would surely be a welcome development given the repeated participation death of every single world. Also, alts would lower median average too, so it is a slight tax on those who abuse them.
Fierce_Deity wrote:Shipright wrote:The threshold after which decay takes place should be dynamic. Make it the median skill level of the entire world population active within a certain timeframe. This way what constitutes a "big boy" and subject to decay is relative to the overall world development and what constitutes a newbie that needs the crutch of the non-decay threshold expands as end game players push the median higher. A late game influx of new players may lower the median, but such a phenomenon would surely be a welcome development given the repeated participation death of every single world. Also, alts would lower median average too, so it is a slight tax on those who abuse them.
Alts lowering the median as a tax is dumb. Don't try to pass off a major flaw of your suggestion as a perk. If they did go with a dynamic decay threshold it would have to be based off the top 1000 players. Spawning in 10000 alts to raise the decay rate on your enemies does not sound like a good idea.
But I do want decay mechanics to be added, would be pretty nice.
Granger wrote:pppp wrote:Taking a vacation will be punishing under character decay scheme.
Which would be an upgrade to the as-is of a vacation being defeating under the current endless growth scheme.
Tamalak wrote:I'm totally on board with WORLD decay. Crop quality dropping the longer it goes unharvested etc. Make it so that if the world lasts 10 years we don't end up with q10,000 seeds, but rather works in a cycle.
CHARACTERS should not decay. Diminishing returns for stats along with players joining and quitting is sufficient. And if I took off from the game for a week and came back to see my character even slightly decayed I'd never want to play again.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests