Tailor Archive
Thread: decay???
Certainly in a perfect world (or a perfect game) there would be a USE decay and a muchslower TIMED decay. That would best simulate reality. However, often we only get a muchless detailedchoice. What the developers can do and what's best to do are two different things. I am all for varyinglevels of decay based on time, use, and on material type, but if all we get is a choice between no decay (the current situation) and the simplest of the alternatives - i.e. timed decay, I'll take timed decay anytime.
I fear developers taking time out from their busy schedule to quickly skim through this thread mightget the impressionthat a lot of my opponents in this discussionwould preferno decay overANY of the alternatives. That's certainly the impression I got from some of the respondents (and it's hard to see how some can be seen asNOT defending the currentstatus quo).
Beery wrote:
I get the impression that many players are only interested in what they can get out of the game in terms of credits or experience. Well what you get out of it is proportional to the depth and care you put into it. Clothing decay will make your characteract more like a real person in a real world. Without clothing decay, you're missing out on a lot of depth and making the game shallower all round. Who wants that??? I don't know of any game that sells itself based on a 'shallow gameplaying experience'.
Saying that we're only interested in getting what we want out of the game, and that we want a more shallow game experience just because we disagree with you is ridiculous. Your glib, sarcastic comebacks at all of our points leads me to believe that you aren't actually thinking about our responses before posting to defend your earlier point. Making snarky comments about how we'll need to "...horror of horrors... ROLEPLAY" adds nothing to the discussion and isn't very constructive.
And saying that we don't want decay because we disagree with the way you want it implemented is just silly. You are the only person who I've heard to advocate completetime based decay in the many many many decay discussions I've participated in. Try searching the tailor forms for some of our many well thought out, detailed threads on the subject. Please read some of them and educate yourself a little more on the subject. You've already said that you're not a tailor, so chances are you haven't put weeks of thought and worry into this subject like we have. We are here telling you thatthose of us were in beta experienced your vision of decay, and it was a disaster. Tailors all want decay. That's a given. But we want a responsible decay system that doesn't alienate all of our customers (except you).
I'm glad that you're pro-decay. But your version of decay would make both us and most our customers miserable. Time based decay was an atrocity in beta, I don't see why it would be any better if they stuck it in release.
Look, we have here a situation where there is NO DECAY on clothing whatsoever. I'm simply arguing for decay. How it's implemented is irrelevant - anything would be an improvement as far as I'm concerned. I've never said that I'd prefer timed decay overuse decay, other than to say that clothes DO decay over time AS WELL as decaying through use.
The reason my remarks might be 'snarky' is thatmy comments areconstantly met with outrageoushyperbole,straw men, equivocation, specious reasoningand all kinds of sophistry in response. If some of the folks here would respond with facts rather than the kind ofhyperbole I've pointed out in previous posts, I'd be happy to respond in a more respectful manner. Sadly, hyperbole and sophistry are in themselves disrespectful, since not only do they suggest that I am stupid, they suggest that the entire community is stupid enough to fall for them too.