Ferinex wrote: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:
delfer8 wrote: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.