if a player's character is wiped because of inactivity, their buildings should be too, focker, 2004-03-16 15:02:27

if a player's character is wiped because of inactivity, their buildings should be too

Sort of, acius, 2004-03-17 15:48:29

Buildings should be decaying over time naturally, and the decay rules for buildings will be a lot faster than player-wipe rules usually are. I intend for natural building decay to take care of things.

Nod, focker, 2004-03-17 23:01:55

So when will this be implemented? And what will some of the rules for building decay be?

Building decay implementation, acius, 2004-03-27 02:41:21

Building decay will be implemented, um, later. As soon as I get around to it.

As for rules ... buildings will have a certain amount of health/condition points. Over time, they'll accumulate damage just by aging. As soon as damage hits 100%, the building will collapse and be replaced, probably by some kind of 'ruins'. Ruins will not be enterable, but you might be able to salvage a small amount of building material from them.

Damage can be repaired, but it will cost materials. The more that needs repairing, the more it will cost.

Buildings don't "remember" how much they cost to build, so figuring out the cost for repairing them could be a little interesting. Perhaps they should remember?

Stuff in buildings?, zaecus, 2004-09-05 15:24:38

What about possibly salvaging some of the stuff that was in the building?

People leave some of the darndest things behind when they move away...

Lock removal, perhaps?, acius, 2004-09-06 13:07:11

Maybe when a building decays, the changes are:

- It takes on a 'dilapidated' description
- Locks become removable by anybody
- The building becomes razeable by anybody.

I like it, zaecus, 2004-09-08 14:59:26

I like this a lot.

Sort of an intermediary stage between "sound building" and "pile of rubble" If it's properly decaying, it provides a brief window where the owner can fix it up, probably at a higher cost than normal maintenance, and where looters can come in and clean it out, encouraging attention to regular maintenance.

I'm not sure about anyone being able to raze it, though. *ponder* Certainly, they should be able to speed the process of decay, but just taking the building out seems a bit premature to me.

buried treasure, gpfault, 2006-06-14 13:35:51

I'm sorta against simply erasing anything in a fallen building.

Sure, a lot of it's sure to suffer damage, but for it to outright vanish would require some sort of dark mana magic...

Turn it into a construction site maybe? half the raw materials or so, plus the contents, could be buried in it or something...

How about demolition?, acius, 2006-07-23 17:33:48

Just use the condemnation signs.

They have most of the effects you want, and the "decay" only applies to buildings that are annoying you.

The signs were intended to solve the 'old building' problem. For more information, type 'recipe condemnation sign'.

There's a comment on the help file about displeasure with the way it works; as far as I know, those issues have all been addressed. I would be up for giving this recipe out more liberally, as it's a pretty essential part of building ecology.

I have no problem with handing the recipe out more liberally, garvin, 2006-07-23 22:28:58

however, there is one problem. The recipe requires silver to craft, and, as far as I know, there are only two people in the game who can craft and/or use it: Zaecus and Myself. That would be the limiting factor. I know I myself am Miserly with my silver, though I'll refine it for anyone who has the ore. And Zaecus is conservative with the condemnation sign. I believe he has the recipe now, though when we become able to write recipes on paper or in books, i'll be there for ya.

No, zaecus, 2006-07-23 22:42:09

- material limitations do not apply to building construction. Anyone can build them he they have silver.
- Sora has the recipe.
- essential to building ecology or not, condemnation signs are entirely too abusable for of to support this.

How abusable?, acius, 2006-07-24 02:46:59

What kind of abuse do you still see happening with the signs? They take a while to go into effect, and if you're using your buildings with any kind of regularity, they're little more than a nuisance. You *can* spam someone with condemnation signs, but it's a fairly expensive way of spamming someone.

One of my planned additions with cities is removing the condemnation sign rules and replacing them with city permissions/powers covering condemnation and razing. If buildings within cities are safe from razing by use of the signs, do you still see abuse problems?

:-/, zaecus, 2006-07-24 04:00:44

I am bed ridden right now and have only my cellphone for access (which ate this post once already). I'm really sorry, but I can't do the thread searches and in-game testing necessary to fully respond to this at the moment.

In short: there -are- other concerns, at least one of major personal importance [please, note my, medically necessary, absence from the game], but depending on how much protected area a city covered and how that was determined/implemented, cities might address -some- of the potential areas of abuse.

Personally, I'd prefer a building decay system that took a minimum of 3-6 months, real time, to materially weaken any building (where someone else could enter with no extra effort) and the owner was allowed some options for preventive maintenance. Besides, the resulting ruins would add flavor and be wonderfully appropriate thematically, in my most humble opinion.

Not necessarily true, garvin, 2006-07-24 19:53:28

Material limitations apply in that you have to ask "Who has silver?" The amount of useable silver currently in the game that is for sale or in the hands of those who could otherwise not craft it is minimal at best.

That said, I believe you are consumed with a sense of paranoia and nostalgia, or resigned and false hope. Some of us just want to clean things up. (Though, I have to say, with the stranglehold that Sora has on the NW ihayan forests, condemning some of his mines sounds tempting. But, on my honor, so on and so forth...) These people are not coming back. I vote that, if they haven't been back around in 180 days, thats more than time enough to give them their chances. I'm sick and tired of pandering to the will of these wishy-washy gamers, Aeao being among them, as he comes on for about 5 minutes then disappears for almost a year at a time. Perhaps if he actually lost a few things, he might be encouraged to make a decision. The game would not suffer with him gone, I'll bet you. And it does the mud no good the way he just holds space like that.

I'll grant you that the condemnation is not necessary at the moment with the size of the player base we currently have. There is ample room for us to explore and build our buildings. However, if an abandoned mine is in a location that is perhaps more convenient to us to have, and the owner cannot be distinguished or has not been available to ask to remove it for the last 4 or 5 months, it is not their loss if it should be demolished in favor of a more current building, as they likely forgot they even had it.

What I hate is that we have such a stagnant player base, but we keep on preserving things for them to return to. The lack of size of our player base is discouraging enough to any new players that happen by. Consider how much more discouraging it must be to see the overabundance of abandoned buildings belonging to players who have been otherwise comatose, but we're hoping will revive one day. Yes, it could happen, but it is doubtful.

There is also plenty of time for players to make a decision on a condemnation sign. Two weeks at least, it is. And if you aren't around in that time to veto it, you don't deserve the privelege to veto it.

As for looting, if you seriously distrust players, that is your problem. This is an equal opportunity game, not a game of absolute equality. Everyone has the opportunity to condemn a building if people wouldn't be so stingy about the recipe. The property within the buildings is not communal. Likely, it is beyond the scope of any newbies to use, or too much for the current influx of players we're receiving to actually use.

But seriously, your fear over this is seriously outdone for the moment.

As I may never be able to come back and can't very well have this conversation on a cellphone, zaecus, 2006-07-24 22:45:22

Do whatever you want. Especially since you are so set on getting it you are willing to have an argument with yourself by arguing against positions that I haven't taken. Hopefully it won't in badly or, if it does, hopefully the damage won't be too bad for everyone else and you'll learn something from the experience. Me, I learned there lessons a long time ago and have accepted that this won't stop others from reinforcing them repeatedly.

Oh, and about that two weeks; if I'm very lucky, I may be recovered enough to wall in a month, but chamber are, at this point, that I'll get worse instead of better.

Bye, I guess.

That was, zaecus, 2006-07-24 22:48:30

'walk in a month' and 'chances are'. God, I hate doing this over a cellphone.

Two Weeks, sora, 2006-08-14 13:23:08

What kind of status is considered active?

I log on about every two weeks, but I have extensive property holdings throughout the world. Am I required to spend three or four hours every two weeks looking at all of my property to ensure that there aren't signs?

(I assume you mean mines in the NW ihaya, not the forests, I'm pretty sure I don't have a monopoly on the forests.)

Hmm, I remember building a bunch of mines in the NW corner, did I achieve a monopoly? I remember building all of those mines, but I also remember the reason for building the mines. It was a tangential purpose of my secret mission, so I can't discuss the nature of what I was doing, but my purpose wasn't monopoly. I'll have to go check, but it is a non-trivial effort to go out there every couple of weeks.