Backpack Durability

[Chettaman]

I may be the only person who would want something like this.

But I would like to see that backpacks (and maybe some other container items) get a set amount of use like armor. Except backpacks would lose durability from:
(depending on how full they are) *these are made up backpack weights (kind of)
- walking (also packed to an animal) |empty - easily manageable ~ 0| manageable - very heavy ~ 1| VERY heavy - unbelievably heavy - 3|

- running (also packed to an animal) |empty- easily managble ~ 0| managable - very heavy ~ 2| VERY heavy - unbelievably heavy - 6|

- combat per round (also packed to an animal) |empty- easily managble ~ 0| managable - very heavy ~ 3| VERY heavy - unbelievably heavy - 7|

And after your backpack's durability gets to 0 you would begin to lose items. Not all at once, or sometimes all at once.
You know how people walk around everywhere with a backpack. It's a normal thing for a lot of people. They live out of those things. They keep all of their most precious secrets in them, but mostly because they can't bury those most precious secrets anywhere they want without fear of it disappearing to the code. I want to suggest we save buried items too, but that's another thread.

the biggest problem that I notice from something like this is the fact that you can't put on or take off items while in combat. If someone did attack you, you couldn't wiggle out of your backpack. I also want to suggest, and I'll make this another thread sooner or later, that items be made removable at the cost of a free attack(s) depending on the item being removed.

[Yam]

Item decay is pretty anti-casual and unnecessary I think. It's honestly difficult to play casually and keep a character fed and watered unless you abuse things. Adding in use decay would put another needless burden on people with limited play hours and I don't think it would add fun to the game.

I don't even think it's that realistic. I've owned backpacks for decades+ with heavy use and they haven't broken down much. Granted they are made of synthetic material, but Arm backpacks are usually pretty tough too.

[Lizzie]

One of the Pickers shows on TV featured packs worn by the military during WWI. That means these packs are over 100 years old, and were stuffed - and would've been "heavy" to "very heavy" at all times, for a minimum of 2 years, non-stop. Remember, the heaviness of your burden when you type "stat" is not related AT ALL to the weight of the pack. It's related to your strength. An elf with "poor" strength carrying "pack A" stuffed with "Contents A" might show "unbelievably heavy" in their stats, while a human with "AI" strength might show it as merely "light."

So basically - the elf's possessions would decay much quicker than the *exact same pack with the exact same contents* worn by a dwarf, or human, or even a half-elf with better strength.

For that reaon alone I'd say nah to the idea. But also because some packs are pretty darned durable, even when worn through wars, such as the WWI packs worn by heavy artillery soldiers made of cloth and leather.

[Chettaman]

There's no doubt about it. Military backpacks are really, really good. Not just for durability, but they're practical. The military, despite a lot of other items that are lacking, are good on the bags they make.
And maybe I'm just really bad with bags, but I've used bags on a regular filled to the brim most times and they've all broken on me. I was that kid that never used his locker in school, but had all his books and school things. It just didn't make sense to waste time at a locker when I could carry all of m- anyway...

I forgot to mention the material of which the backpack is made, and yes. I also realized that those weights only pertain to a character's over all weight and not a backpack's. hence the "*these are made up backpack weights"


as for anti-casual. I dunno... I've found the decaying of food to be almost non-existent. It's actually a pleasant surprise when I do see spoiled items, because it gives me hope that the code is working. I used to - stuff I can't talk about and that was a way I knew it was working, but other than that; my characters lately only eat what they cook and more often than not it's burned and more often than not I'm hungry if not borderline or actually starving. But of course... I usually stock up for just a day or two while being indy. One scrab or chalton = 1/5 days of life! - then I just log out with the food in my backpack because I don't have an apartment and it never goes bad. - this is why I never see the code working. It just slapped me in the face. If I could bury things inside dirt floored "empty" buildings, this wouldn't be an issue! Then the issue would be theft. heh.
[this is not an insult or me mocking anyone] I got the impression that struggling to be filled was the norm.
So, no, you're right. I guess the food and water code is anti-casual without abuse. And I suppose a backpack durability would be too. What if it had A LOT of health depending on the type of backpack you got?

You're right, I agree, though. I mostly play for passed 2 hours at a time, so I can't say how easy it would be to play for someone who does less.

[nauta]

Item decay is pretty anti-casual and unnecessary I think. It's honestly difficult to play casually and keep a character fed and watered unless you abuse things. Adding in use decay would put another needless burden on people with limited play hours and I don't think it would add fun to the game.

Setting aside realism and the current item (backpack), I'm of the camp that views item decay (if done right) as something that stimulates RP and interaction -- oh crap, my shield finally broke, I need to go interact with Salarr again and order a new one (for instance).  Plus, I just love the risk of a shield or armor shattering in battle -- keeps things exciting.

What I'd like to see is item decay be tied into item usage (rather than age) -- then it would I think be friendly to casuals -- if you aren't using that item that much, it won't decay that much.  With weapons/shields/armor this is pretty obvious.  With backpacks and clothes, perhaps the item decay could be tied to the number of times it receives the 'stained' status from scrubbing.

[Armaddict]

The same way food decay promoted food-selling?

Oh wait.

[Chettaman]

The same way food decay promoted food-selling?

Oh wait.

Well I rarely feel the effects of food decay because I eat what I kill. And I'm usually hungry when I do it. I imagine that most people do this. And if they don't... if they rely on other people to fill a bin with food to eat from it's going to decay "sooner or later", but it takes so long to decay, that no doubt it would just be filled with unspoiled food that someone wouldn't notice or care about except those who may say, "Well don't let it go to waste. Eat that first or sell it." - and then you go out to sell it because you can't eat it and you see everyone else doing the same thing. Either killing their own food or selling it. It's still a useful code, because...

I imagine there are people who roleplay being indy and are unable to go out and kill their own foods. They probably end up getting their food for free from someone else or trading for it, or... whatever. It's easy for us players to acquire food. We know. The decay code for food is easily avoidable and a decaying backpack code would be too.
Except that one time when someone would rather not eat something rotten, but they have no choice. Except that one time someone is walking along and his backpack breaks and now there's coins all over the place, there's that metal sword he was carrying around, four letters from the Tektolnes... or just a bunch of random junk. And unfortunately there were NPCs, PCs, VNPCs around to see it.

To be fair, I believe food decay would promote food selling if food decay worked for food logged off with the character. Or if the hordes of level 1 wild boars outside the city of allanak weren't so easily accessible. Or if food decay was only more effective in certain containers and not all containers.

[Vwest]

The same way food decay promoted food-selling?

Oh wait.

But it did promote food selling - to NPCs!

It was a neat concept, but in practice all it amounted to is tedious busywork for independents.

It might have been more successful if clans didn't have their own infinite supply of food via NPCs.

[Majikal]

It might have been more successful if clans didn't have their own infinite supply of food via NPCs.

This would be pretty awesome. I can see the drawback for some, but I would definitely like this.

Paying hunters to stock a Noble House kitchens etc, more things to do, more player to player interaction, more opportunity for shenanigans.

[Lizzie]

It might have been more successful if clans didn't have their own infinite supply of food via NPCs.

This would be pretty awesome. I can see the drawback for some, but I would definitely like this.

Paying hunters to stock a Noble House kitchens etc, more things to do, more player to player interaction, more opportunity for shenanigans.

Stocking kitchens can't work if there's food decay. They'd have to remove this system, and come up with some other way to feed/water characters in clans that have no one available to provide the food and water (since that's supposed to be a perk of working for a clan).

Maybe if each clan member could be permitted "x" amount of food from the NPC each RL day, and "y" waterskin refills per RL day - without any roll-over. Use it or lose it kind of deal, but it's guaranteed to you on a daily basis.

[Beethoven]

I really like the food decay. When you play in a tribe it makes you have to go out and hunt rather than be set for life by the 300 cuts of meat left by the people who preceded you in your role.

[BadSkeelz]

I think what we need are edible backpacks subject to the same timers as other food.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm pretty much against any and every one of these "decaying" ideas. Food, armor(even as is), backpacks, weapons, even bodies shouldn't decay. It doesn't add enough to the atmosphere to overcome its inherent tedium.

When was the last time you actually saw people repairing their armor in the Byn on armor maintenance day, instead of just emoting something out? That armor maintenance day is the only time I can think of interesting roleplay surrounding armor destruction.

[Miradus]

Did your "Hello, Kitty" backpack get a hole in it, Chet?

Seriously, guys. I have backpacks older than some of you that are still in great shape and usable. And most of them were made by the lowest bidder.

Shoe durability, on the other hand, is abyssmal. And if I don't have a sock, my mood will sour and there will be a tantrum spiral that brings down the whole fortress.

[Chettaman]

My backpacks weren't well suited for the kind of traveling I did. But that's my point. And while I can agree that this idea may end up like these other ideas, I remain hopeful.

Bodies should not decay as fast as they do, unless the creatures in zalanthas really do just fade into dust in like three days is it?. - they should also be skinnable to more creatures.
I like that my armor has to be maintained for it to be any good. People don't even take their boots off to sleep. People don't even sleep. (which I understand why they don't, I'm just saying)
If it's acceptable for people to not maintain themselves ever it makes sense that their armor not need any maintenance either.
I don't like that armor just shatters and goes away forever - some of it could be repaired.
Weapons should be able to be maintained. And their wear should also be noticeable. Some weapon breaks can be repaired too.
Food. I think food in just any old bag would decay as fast as anything else. Unless it were an airtight bin or an airtight bag or some such. Also salt would help keep food from decaying. The way it is now, I believe, if it's in a bag there's a chance for it to not decay. Which is simple, and works, but it doesn't really make the food that much harder to keep, that I've noticed. I'd say after having food in my backpack for days at a time it doesn't change at all.

[Miradus]

I'm absolutely okay with wear and tear, but there's a dozen other things that also ought to be addressed if we're going to go for hardcore realism. And backpack durability would not even make my top ten list.

Shoe durability, on the other hand ...

[Chettaman]

True enough. Especially for people who actually labor or ACTUALLY do training in their foot wear.

I'll also say that my boots after six months of near non-stop action weren't done for, but were definitely worn and warped. Serviceable, but definitely worn.
We should go down the list and suggest them all!

[Miradus]

Skidmarked drawers.

Leather chafing (Oh, you think you can just put on that new pair of gortok-skin pants and go for a long inix ride? Better oil up them thighs, Mister Dwarf)

And the ever popular ... I'll just stuff this marilla sap in here with this big pile of feathers. I can eat it later.

[Chettaman]

Undergarments location. Skidmarked or ''used'' drawers.
Restrictions to even master riders or at least some negatives to any great lengths of riding. Perhaps... losing like 1 stamina even while riding. And when you lose control of the animal briefly it's 2 stamina for the struggle. And that could be considered the "wear and tear" of traveling.

I actually haven't given my chance to walk or ride (mounted) around in leather armors, so I have no experience to share.

SAP! hahaha... I always feel so effing stupid when I put sap in my backpack by itself. This is going to the confessions thread.*
I think we should just insist that everyone bring jars or something like a container before gathering said sap.