Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'srsly'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Official Buildings
    • GM Hall
    • City Hall
    • Website News
    • Public Test Board
  • Back Streets
    • Town Square
    • Community Assistance
    • Village Recruitment Center
    • Suggestions & Ideas
    • The Creative Commons
    • Wood Scraps
  • Wurm Unlimited
    • Unlimited Discussion
    • Server Listings & Advertisement
    • Unlimited Modding
    • Technical Issues
  • Freedom Isles
    • Celebration
    • Deliverance
    • Exodus
    • Independence
    • Pristine
    • Release
    • Xanadu
    • Freedom Isles Market
  • Maintenance Buildings
    • Technical Issues
    • Server Bugs
    • Client Bugs
    • Model and Sound Bugs
    • Other Bugs and Issues
    • Wurmpedia / Wiki Maintenance

Found 1 result

  1. Conventional wisdom dictates that cedar items decay more slowly, but that cedar containers do nothing to slow down the decay of their contents. Turns out this is actually wrong, and cedar containers do, in fact, slow down the decay of their contents, in addition to cedar items themselves taking less damage. In fact, it stacks. A cedar item, or an item in a cedar container, decays more slowly. A cedar item inside a cedar container decays even more slowly. In fact, the more cedar containers are nested inside each other, the better the effect. For example, an item inside a cedar bucket, inside a cedar large barrel, inside a cedar raft, inside a cedar wagon takes quite significantly less damage than normal. For some background on this and where I got the idea, see here: Of course, the decay code is essentially a basilisk and scares the hell out of me, and empirical data is always a good idea, so I've run a couple tests over the past several days. If you don't care to read lots of numbers and rambling statements, feel free to skip to "Overall Conclusions" at the bottom of this post. Methodology: Removed hundreds of cooked meat from a food storage bin, then placed them in various off-deed, outdoor containers in a secure area. I then checked back a certain time later and noted how much decay was on the meat in each container, and how much (if any) had already completely been destroyed due to 100+ decay damage. Meat QL is not quite the same from test to test, so specific decay values can't really be compared between them. Container QL does not matter, but is listed anyway for the sake of completeness, and I've tried to use roughly equivalent QL of containers anyway. Damage is 0 when not specified. Also note: "Cedar count" below means how many containers in the chain are cedar. For example, meat inside a cedar bucket inside a firwood raft inside a cedar caravel would have a cedar count of 2. Test 1: Two barrels, one cedar and one fir, placed on the ground off-deed and outdoors. Each barrel contains one cedar bucket, three cotton satchels, and the rest of the barrel filled with meat. Initial meat QL not recorded but was likely 46.61QL. Meat left to ripen for approximately 2 or 3 days (not certain; all that's important is all the meat in this test decayed for the same amount of time). Please note that average damage of meat inside a container may be very misleading if some of the meat has already decayed away entirely, since those are not factored into the average; a container's meat stack may have significantly more decay than another even with lower average damage, if it has suffered more total loss of meat items, since the average is only the average damage of REMAINING meat in the stack. Results: Cedar Barrel (41.65 QL) 61 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 37.53 dmg): 7 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 9 - 17.97 dmg, 8 - 42.91 dmg, 17 - 57.94 dmg, 9 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Small Bucket (30.93 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 18.30 dmg): 13 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 8 - 25.74 dmg, 15 - 37.30 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 28.78 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 23 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 9 - 42.91 damage, 9 - 57.94 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 33.66 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 16 - 8.58 dmg, 9 - 17.97 dmg, 13 - 42.91 dmg, 17 - 57.94 dmg, 7 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 37.98 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 16 - 8.58 dmg, 6 - 17.97 dmg, 6 - 42.91 dmg, 23 - 57.94 dmg, 11 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Fir Barrel (42.37 QL) 43 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 39.13 dmg): 3 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.58 dmg, 7 - 17.97 dmg, 8 - 28.43 dmg, 4 - 68.85 dmg, 10 - 96.03 dmg, 18 destroyed (29.5% loss) Cedar Small Bucket (31.70 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. 30.95 dmg): 10 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.58 dmg, 5 - 17.97 dmg, 4 - 42.91 dmg, 8 - 57.94 dmg, 8 - 78.34 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 56 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 37.20 dmg): 5 - 0 dmg, 15 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 6 - 28.43 dmg, 3 - 68.65 dmg, 14 - 96.03 dmg, 15 destroyed (21.1% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 57 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 38.36 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 13 - 8.58 dmg, 13 - 17.97 dmg, 3 - 28.43 dmg, 6 - 68.65 dmg, 14 - 96.03 dmg, 14 destroyed (19.7% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 49 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 35.59 dmg): 6 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.58 dmg, 10 - 17.97 dmg, 7 - 28.43 dmg, 3 - 68.65 dmg, 11 - 96.03 dmg, 22 destroyed (31.0% loss) Tentative conclusions from test 1: Time between decay damage ticks is somewhat highly randomized. Higher sample size/more tests needed to determine if time between decay ticks is influenced by cedar. Damage due to a single decay tick is entirely deterministic, as only certain values were encountered. Damage amount definitely appears to depend on how many cedar containers "deep" an item is stored within (including, presumably, the item itself being cedar). For example, the same damage "steps" are encountered in the meat stack inside a cotton satchel inside a cedar barrel, as encountered in the meat stack inside a cedar bucket inside a fir barrel, because each has a single cedar container somewhere up the chain (cedar count: 1). Meanwhile, the meat stack inside the cedar bucket inside a cedar barrel (cedar count: 2) has different values from the rest. Cedar containers definitely slow decay. With a sample size of a few hundred meat, and the amount of consistency we see here, this is essentially certain. The only meat stacks with any totally-lost items are ones with a cedar count of 0. Multiple nested cedar containers certainly seem to slow decay further. Stacks with a cedar count greater of 2 seem to take less damage on average than stacks with a cedar count of 1, and the damage tick sizes are different in magnitude (see #2 above), but more testing is needed. These results were pretty encouraging, so I decided to do another test. Test 2: Testing to see results of more varied cedar container nesting. One fir barrel placed on the ground off-deed and outdoors, containing three cotton satchels filled with meat. A cedar wagon also parked nearby, containing: 85 meat and one cedar raft. Cedar raft inside wagon contains three cedar buckets and three cotton satchels, all filled with meat. Each barrel contains one cedar bucket, three cotton satchels, and the rest of the barrel filled with meat. Initial meat QL equal to 45.21. Meat left to ripen for approximately 3 days, 18 hours. Please note in this test that the starting meat QL is not the same as in the prior test, and it was left to decay for a longer period, so please do not compare numbers between the two tests! Don't do it! I mean it! Fir Barrel (42.37 QL, 2.0 dmg) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL, 9.5 dmg) 35 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 37.52 dmg): 1 - 0 dmg, 2 - 8.85 dmg, 5 - 18.55 dmg, 7 - 29.42 dmg, 11 - 41.95 dmg, 8 - 57.19 dmg, 1 - 77.86 dmg, 36 destroyed (50.7% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL, 9.5 dmg) 39 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 39.36 dmg): 3 - 8.85 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 12 - 29.42 dmg, 4 - 41.95 dmg, 10 - 57.19 dmg, 1 - 70.78 dmg, 3 - 77.86 dmg, 32 destroyed (45.1% loss) Cotton Satchel (10.09 QL, 9.9 dmg) 31 meat (Cedar count: 0, avg. of remaining 33.54 dmg): 2 - 8.85 dmg, 4 - 18.55 dmg, 15 - 29.42 dmg, 7 - 41.95 dmg, 1 - 57.19 dmg, 2 - 77.86 dmg, 40 destroyed (56.3% loss) Cedar Wagon (40.482 QL, 7.54 dmg) 70 meat (Cedar count: 1, avg. of remaining 43.10 dmg): 2 - 0 dmg, 14 - 8.85 dmg, 11 - 18.55 dmg, 7 - 29.42 dmg, 3 - 41.95 dmg, 3 - 44.24 dmg, 11 - 60.10 dmg, 19 - 82.28 dmg, 15 destroyed (17.6% loss) Cedar Raft (16.72 QL) Cedar Bucket (30.93 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 17.95 dmg): 9 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.85 dmg, 5 - 17.69 dmg, 4 - 18.55 dmg, 11 - 28.44 dmg, 6 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Bucket (31.82 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 20.15 dmg): 3 - 0 dmg, 12 - 8.85 dmg, 9 - 17.69 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 10 - 28.44 dmg, 7 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cedar Bucket (31.70 QL) 47 meat (Cedar count: 3, avg. 18.11 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 10 - 8.85 dmg, 6 - 17.69 dmg, 6 - 18.55 dmg, 12 - 28.44 dmg, 5 - 40.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 23.96 dmg): 8 - 0 dmg, 22 - 8.85 dmg, 10 - 18.55 dmg, 6 - 26.54 dmg, 3 - 29.42 dmg, 9 - 38.59 dmg, 11 - 52.99 dmg, 2 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 33.68 dmg): 2 - 0 dmg, 11 - 8.85 dmg, 14 - 18.55 dmg, 5 - 26.54 dmg, 3 - 29.42 dmg, 17 - 38.59 dmg, 11 - 52.99 dmg, 8 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Cotton Satchel (10.49 QL) 71 meat (Cedar count: 2, avg. 25.94 dmg): 7 - 0 dmg, 15 - 8.85 dmg, 14 - 18.55 dmg, 4 - 26.54 dmg, 9 - 29.42 dmg, 10 - 38.59 dmg, 9 - 52.99 dmg, 3 - 71.81 dmg, 0 destroyed Tentative conclusions from test 2: Conclusions from test 1 seem to have held water. Higher cedar count definitely seems to matter, possibly without bound. Meat stacks with cedar count 0 suffered much more item loss than meat stacks with cedar count 1. Stacks with cedar count of 2 or 3 suffered no item loss, but every stack with cedar count 2 suffered greater total damage, and greater maximum damage on any single item, than every stack with cedar count 3. More testing may still be necessary to determine if time between decay ticks is affected by cedar count. That was a lot of numbers and words to type, so... let's finish this up, shall we? Overall conclusions: Cedar containers slow down the decay of their contents. The more cedar containers an item is nested in, going all the way up to the highest parent container, the more the decay of that item is slowed. For example, an item inside a cedar bucket, inside a willow raft, inside a cedar knarr (2 cedar containers), will decay more slowly than an item inside a cedar bucket in inventory, a birch knarr, etc. (1 cedar container). If you want to slow decay on an item but don't have a magical chest, you can't bank it, and you can't or don't want to put it in the inventory of yourself or a storage alt, your best bet is probably to nest as many cedar containers as possible ([[[[[Bucket] Large Barrel] Raft] Huge Tub] Vehicle]?), inside a building, on-deed. Amphorae also slow decay of contents, as confirmed by staff (see linked post above). According to WU code, the effect is the same in magnitude as it is for a cedar wooden container, and implemented the same way, so you can still benefit from nesting an amphora inside a cedar container or vice versa. I may test to verify this in the future. Cedar is, more than ever, the obvious choice for pretty much anything that serves as a container, whether it's a ship, a chest, a barrel, or anything else you can make out of wood. Almond milk, while vegan-friendly and not unhealthy, should not be construed as a nutritional replacement for animal milk, as the former is lacking in many important nutrients found in the latter, especially protein content. I am a very tired man.