Not all corpses have same effect on meat degradation

[Trandor]

I'm not trying to come up with Drake equation of item degradation here .. but I just want to show that a real formula could be better than trying to assign magic numbers to every item type according to in container class | on body / according to inside | outside / according to ground |floor etc etc .. yadda yadda, and hope that it will eventually cover everything .. such systems become quickly unwieldy, especially if you can spend a lot time not agreeing on them.

I think your model is too farfetched. I don't really care about different degrading speeds for different food items, nor about corosiveness. that would be too extensive and would not improve the fun while playing all that much. at least to me. the model proposed by elloco and myself would be a lot easier to implement. Of course, yours would be neat, but the main point of the model we proposed was that inside and outside containers have different degradation values and item types have their own degradation speeds according to container and location. assigning values to every single item will take it too far. at least for me. I don't really care about beef jerky and canned peaches having the same degradation speed, as long as they behave accordingly inside vs outside. Corosiveness is also a non-factor to me, but I don't like rifles degrading slower in outside containers compared to the inside ones.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is: A simplified model will do, as long as it is reasonably close to reality. Your model would try to emulate reality, and that takes it a notch too far.

[Bole]

TLDR but if not answered alreday, corpse in front of lake office is frozen corpse and sitting coprse on lake is just a corpse and thus the same as the guy sitting in camp office.

[madrepityu]

TLDR but if not answered alreday, corpse in front of lake office is frozen corpse and sitting coprse on lake is just a corpse and thus the same as the guy sitting in camp office.

I was made an experiment about this few weeks ago, because I was interested.

I killed a deer on Mystery Lake then right after I put the raw venissons into the corpse in front of the Camp Office. Then I run and immediately put few venisson into Carl (corpse inside CO) and several drawers, as well.

Not exactly sure, but I guess that was 24 hours later (I don't remember exactly, but I wrote this down to a paper):

Raw venisson in Corpse in front of the CO: 86%

Raw venisson in Carl (corpse inside CO): 51%

Raw venisson in drawers: 47%

They were almost exactly the same condition when I put them into their containers.

So, I disagree, and I keep using the outside corpse in front of CO. I think the backpack behind Trappers Homestead works the same, as I seen on Accurize's YT videos. Not tried it, yet.

[Burning Bridges]

The backpack behind Trapper's works great. When choosing a backpack just make sure that it's lying flat, the one standing upright is the inside container. see ellocos post

@Trandor

My example is less a suggestion (I think HL will have made similar discussions and decided this long ago) but more an example that a good system does not need many variables. It would need 5-10 properties per item. They need not be defined for every item. Properties could be combined in a new "item degradation class" { metal item ; fresh food ; canned food, sealed goods , organic material(wood, leather) ; and so on .. }

All I am really saying is that decay != item class. They are only superficially related and your simpler formula would need to be at least improved with a similar, but new "item decay class".

I was thinking about giving some counterexample for using the item class for degradation. I am sure they exist, and it will get worse when new items are added. Here are some examples that are already on the limit. I marked items with * that are not in the game, but could be soon.

materials:

gut

leather

wood

newsprint

stone*

which decay rate will be modeled, that of gut or of wood?

newsprint and tinder have no decay? Imo they should have a high decay rate.

tools:

rifle

lamp

toolkit

grindstone*

prybar

a rifle/lamp should be quickly ruined by lying in the snow, grindstone/prybar should however not be affected.

which one is modelled?

And what with stainless items? Needles do not rust do they? You could leve them lying in the snow for a year and they would still be fine.

other

and what about the "Other" category? It currently contains almost anything from bedrolls to rifle ammo etc

[elloco999]

I don't want the system to be overly complex, so if the suggestion Trander and I made is too complex to implement then so be it.

But the point of my post was this:

Containers of the same type in the same location (inside vs outside) should have the same effect. So two corpses both outside should have the same effect on the meat I place on them, it shouldn't matter whether they're laying down or sitting.

Same goes for backpacks. If you have two outside backpacks and one is laying and the other is upright, they should still have the same effect. And if the backpacks were both inside they should also have the same effect and that effect should be different from the backpacks outside.

Also true for metal boxes outside. They should have a different effect than metal boxes inside.

[Burning Bridges]

I absolutely agree. The current system is not that bad, but the game should always make a simple check wether an object/container is inside a building, outside or on the player, before anything else is calculated. Because that is the most important distinction imo.

[Burning Bridges]

Btw, I do not think your system is too complex. None of the suggested suggested systems here is complex.

I am just pointing out counterexamples where it would introduce new problems. (Like gut decaying at the same speed as wood.) And if a solution contains new problems, it needs to be improved.

[Burning Bridges]

Well guys, I have thought this over, and if it was my decision I would implement it with a degradation type. This is similar to ItemClass but not the same, and groups items in a few manageable degradation cases. Each type then defines their own degradation.

class Item
{
ItemClass
DegradationType 
}

//this the current item class
ItemClass:
{
Clothing,
Food, 
First Aid, 
Material, 
Tool,  
Other
}

// just a few examples that cover most cases already
DegradationType:
{
No_Degradation,
Metal_Object,
Canned_Food,
Fresh_Fruit,
Organic Material,
Sealed_Goods,
Water_Sensitive,
Clothing,
..
}

degrade(Item)
{
switch Item.DegradationType
case No_Degradation:
//no decay (eg stainless items, prybars or stone)

case Metal_Object:
//rifle, lamp, knife etc
//very slow decay when stored in dry containers
//fast decay if stored in the open + humidity

case Canned_Food:
//decays relatively slow
//much faster decay in warm places

case Fresh_Fruit:
//fresh foods (raw meat, fruit etc)
//fast decay, except when stored very cool 

case Organic_Material:
//organic materials (leather, wood) need to be stored dry 
//temperature is realtively unimportant (so it doesn't really matter if inside or outside)

case Sealed_Goods:
//medicine, rifle cartidges etc
//either no, or very slow degradation

case Water_Sensitive:
//matches
//storage in dry containers required
//decay VERY quickly if they are left in the open 

case Clothing:
//slow degradation if stored
//temperature is unimportant
//major factor is wear!!

//and so  ..
}

That means the variables controlling decays would be pretty manageable, because you only need to assign 1 DegradationType to every item:

Item cannedPeaches = new Item("Canned Peaches");
cannedPeaches.DegradationType=Canned_Food;
..

Ok, just my two cents.

[Trandor]

That's the quintessential point. Everything else would simply be the cherry on top.