Walls on a claim should decay preferentially

[vatas]

Have I had a dream where I read patch notes about Palisade changes that I thought was real?

Anyway these changes (that for a while, I assumed to have been in place) should be good.

*Maximum palisade soak reduced to something like 10.

*Claims don't give hand-bash protection when at zero Presence/Authority.

If you maintain your claim, nothing effectively changes. However, inactive claims become much easier to break in.

[pawnchito]

*Claims don't give hand-bash protection when at zero Presence/Authority.

This should be a no brainer, if you quit your shit is free game.

I wonder if the resolution of the bug Snail was talking about was just easiest to fix without addressing this issue.

[Audiosmurf]

Have I had a dream where I read patch notes about Palisade changes that I thought was real?

In legacy I had a dream that someone came up outside my base and killed me over my wall with an uzi

[Ferinex]

seems SS and others understood well enough the intent of the post, though there's a piece left untouched. preferential decay of walls incentivizes the creation of more walls as a buffer against decay, in the event your claim ever is at 0 presence. if walls were targeted preferentially even off-claim, walls themselves might serve as a shield against decay; all repairs concentrated then into a single resource and structure, which I reckon might be good. there's a dissatisfying aspect of redundancy present in the relationship between walls and claims

[BoxingRock]

seems SS and others understood well enough the intent of the post, though there's a piece left untouched. preferential decay of walls incentivizes the creation of more walls as a buffer against decay, in the event your claim ever is at 0 presence. if walls were targeted preferentially even off-claim, walls themselves might serve as a shield against decay; all repairs concentrated then into a single resource and structure, which I reckon might be good. there's a dissatisfying aspect of redundancy present in the relationship between walls and claims

Bro, what even is this suggestion, it is so bad and out of touch I don't even understand

You just turned a thread with a handful of people agreeing with and considering somebody's interpretation of your post in to a head shaking reminder of who you are

-1 to everything

[ZoddAlmighty]

seems SS and others understood well enough the intent of the post, though there's a piece left untouched. preferential decay of walls incentivizes the creation of more walls as a buffer against decay, in the event your claim ever is at 0 presence. if walls were targeted preferentially even off-claim, walls themselves might serve as a shield against decay; all repairs concentrated then into a single resource and structure, which I reckon might be good. there's a dissatisfying aspect of redundancy present in the relationship between walls and claims

Mama's special little boy.

[VDZ]

seems SS and others understood well enough the intent of the post, though there's a piece left untouched. preferential decay of walls incentivizes the creation of more walls as a buffer against decay, in the event your claim ever is at 0 presence. if walls were targeted preferentially even off-claim, walls themselves might serve as a shield against decay; all repairs concentrated then into a single resource and structure, which I reckon might be good. there's a dissatisfying aspect of redundancy present in the relationship between walls and claims

How often do you find your claim being at 0 presence? The only times I've had that happen were on remote claims I completely forgot about for a while, and I've never had any issues with decay even in those situations (most types of decay take ages). Unless you're suggesting that all decay should be redirected towards walls, in which case we can just dump shit like cupboards and looms outside...which is something I'd expect to get more opposition than just making abandoned bases easier to loot. (I do still want my cave cupboards back, though.)

For the original suggestion, I think Delfer8 made a good point:

Why would a decay mechanic favour raiders and looters

Its cool to get free stuff but the thing is: why whould a game decay mechanic help a kind of player choice?

To add to this: walls decaying before other stuff has more of a difference than universal convenience. As long as walls are up, only people capable of wrecking the walls (currently people who can spare the resources for it; in legacy this was people strong enough to palibash) can get access to the goods. This means that by the time a less advanced player gets to the ruin, the good stuff has likely already been looted (I feel this was much more strongly the case in legacy, though it's been years so my memory might just be wrong on this). Whether this is a net positive (because players can more easily catch up) or too much of a negative (too much free loot makes other progression futile for less advanced players) could be argued, but it's definitely a functional change.

[Ferinex]

0 presence commentary is a segue to the 'even off-claim' comment. I hadn't considered cupboards looms etc which are already impacted uniquely by decay, although that may indicate a precedent exists for targeting with preference. The change called for in OP requires these aspects to be considered. The forethought that triggered the suggestion was an observation of the relationship between claims and walls (the intended function of each--what overlap is there?) Walls are for strong defense against crime. Claims are for defense against decay, permission management, as well as weak defense against crime. From that it's not hard to see that walls reasonably could serve as a defense against decay, either weakly or strongly to complement claims. Anyway, this is a secondary conversation which I see as being necessarily related to the original suggestion, and why I brought it up.

This means that by the time a less advanced player gets to the ruin, the good stuff has likely already been looted (I feel this was much more strongly the case in legacy, though it's been years so my memory might just be wrong on this). Whether this is a net positive (because players can more easily catch up) or too much of a negative (too much free loot makes other progression futile for less advanced players) could be argued, but it's definitely a functional change.

This is where my head was at in the OP.

You just turned a thread with a handful of people agreeing with and considering somebody's interpretation of your post in to a head shaking reminder of who you are

I don't see the problem? Identifying bad suggestions through conversation is half the function of this forum. The fact no one else pointed out seemingly an obvious facet of the suggestion is a diss on yourself