Coelacanth
Stalker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Posts
- 2,167
- Location
- Alberta, Canada
- Avatar Name
- Coelacanth Coelacanth Maryka
I realize this is a major thread revival, but I was thinking about this in logical terms the other night while playing...
I understand the logic of clothing decaying a tiny bit every time you wear it (i.e. each time you put it on & take it off), because that's how you "use" clothing...by WEARING it.
By the same logic, I disagree that armor should suffer the same decay (if it indeed still does, I haven't checked to confirm this lately), because the purpose of armor is to PROTECT you, i.e. when you're in battle or hunting. Armor isn't doing its job when you just remove & replace it, just as weapons aren't do their job when you equip/unequip them. Last time I checked, weapons don't decay when you equip/unequip them, so why should armor?
Mindark maintains that their major source of revenue is from decay, so this unnecessary and illogical decay on armor R & R is like an unfair tax, at least IMO.
I understand the logic of clothing decaying a tiny bit every time you wear it (i.e. each time you put it on & take it off), because that's how you "use" clothing...by WEARING it.
By the same logic, I disagree that armor should suffer the same decay (if it indeed still does, I haven't checked to confirm this lately), because the purpose of armor is to PROTECT you, i.e. when you're in battle or hunting. Armor isn't doing its job when you just remove & replace it, just as weapons aren't do their job when you equip/unequip them. Last time I checked, weapons don't decay when you equip/unequip them, so why should armor?
Mindark maintains that their major source of revenue is from decay, so this unnecessary and illogical decay on armor R & R is like an unfair tax, at least IMO.
Last edited by a moderator: