Should caves cave-in a lot quicker unsupported?

[Hellaciouss 0]

Just wondering what other people think about having caves cave-in faster then they do. I have a fairly long cave network, I would say 80% unsupported (mostly just the entrance is supported, yet cave ins are extremely rare. I went away for quite a few months and came back and only had maybe 3-4 tiles caved in, which is very very little considering how big the cave network I have is.

I would suggest they cave in a bit more frequently if they are not supported. Thoughts?

[BrQQQ 2,854]

It's fine as it is imo. It's really random, wouldn't really change that.

[Postes 5,282]

In my opinion the longer and narrower a tunnel, the higher percentage of collapse it should be.

I've seen some tunnels that are like a 1x90 and its just unrealistic, though this game is obviously not aimed to be.  Like on Wild eventually it gets harder and harder for new players to settle somewhere a year later because there's so many mines existing and interfeering. 

[Nelus 5]

its very random, i had a week in my small cave where i had a cave in of 3-4 tiles. two days later another 3 and another 2 at the end of the week.

btw maybe cave entrances shouldnt cave in, it destroyed the mine door and it doesnt make sense as where should the rock come from(i mined down in relative flat rock)?

[Uberknot 327]

In my opinion the longer and narrower a tunnel, the higher percentage of collapse it should be.

I've seen some tunnels that are like a 1x90 and its just unrealistic, though this game is obviously not aimed to be.  Like on Wild eventually it gets harder and harder for new players to settle somewhere a year later because there's so many mines existing and interfeering.

I agree if not supported the more distance a tunnel goes W,E,N,S in one direction it should have a bigger chance for collapse. 

[Wraithglow 787]

does it not make more sense that narrow tunnels collapse less than massive wide caverns? after all narrow tunnels have a better supported roof.

In an ideal world, i would suggest that wider = increased chance to collapse, and higher ceiling = less likely (so wide caverns like IRL ones with high ceilings are possible without being unmanageable)... im imagining that the ceiling is curved like a vaulted ceiling in cathedrals, mosques, etc. obviously this isnt the case, but helps with applying some logic to how often tunnels should collapse.

[zCat 39]

Unused tunnels that noone walks down, should collapse faster, well used tunnels are OK as they are. 

Maybe base collapse rate should be increased but allow people to do maintenance on them to reduce the rate, like walls take damage, but can be repaired

[Zakiah 66]

Once a tile caves in, it would seem logical that the surrounding area is further weakened.  After the first cave-in, if it is not re-mined or re-supported, one might expect to see cave-ins occurring in greater frequency.

On top of this, non-deeded and non-heritage support structures should decay like walls decay when faced with lack of activity, which is also similar to how roads are supposed to decay.  This means that ql should matter, they can be repaired, and they can be imped.  Ultimately, the underground would return to a pristine state if left alone.  I think once there is a support structure now, that tile is permanently dug until manually collapsed.

All of this should happen in about the same length of time as it takes the surface to revert to pristine state, instead of the underground lasting seemingly forever.

(zCat, we were thinking the same thing at the same time) 

[atazs 965]

Once a tile caves in, it would seem logical that the surrounding area is further weakened.  After the first cave-in, if it is not re-mined or re-supported, one might expect to see cave-ins occurring in greater frequency.

On top of this, non-deeded and non-heritage support structures should decay like walls decay when faced with lack of activity, which is also similar to how roads are supposed to decay.  This means that ql should matter, they can be repaired, and they can be imped.  Ultimately, the underground would return to a pristine state if left alone.  I think once there is a support structure now, that tile is permanently dug until manually collapsed.

All of this should happen in about the same length of time as it takes the surface to revert to pristine state, instead of the underground lasting seemingly forever.

(zCat, we were thinking the same thing at the same time) 

This also it should destroy or at least severely damage anything under it. But what if it collapses on you?

[Kegan 3,926]

I think that once the entrance collapses that the tunnels should have accelerated decay/collapsing timer. That way if there is a bad mine in your area all you have to do is collapse the entrance and in a short while the mine will be all back to solid rock/ore.

[GravityDog 41]

does it not make more sense that narrow tunnels collapse less than massive wide caverns? after all narrow tunnels have a better supported roof.

^ that's what I thought.

as for how long a cave should last. i think it should be a good bit longer than for "surface to revert to grass".

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

Unused tunnels that noone walks down, should collapse faster, well used tunnels are OK as they are. 

Some variant of the pavement code? So if the tunnel isn't used at least once every few days there's an increased chance of caveins?

[Facesofmu 4]

Unused tunnels that noone walks down, should collapse faster, well used tunnels are OK as they are. 

Nay, the more used a tunnel is, the greater chance of collapse. This encourages people to use supports.

[Mhyth 14]

Unused tunnels that noone walks down, should collapse faster, well used tunnels are OK as they are. 

Nay, the more used a tunnel is, the greater chance of collapse. This encourages people to use supports.

Having both situations increase the chance of collapse would be even better - incentive to add supports to travel routes and allow unused mine sections to collapse back on themselves more quickly.

[bdew 2,462]

Supports are extremely irritating to build in numbers and a PITA. Wurm is good enough at being irritating as is, no need to add more. -1.

[Domhnall 69]

Supports are extremely irritating to build in numbers and a PITA. Wurm is good enough at being irritating as is, no need to add more. -1.

No more or less irritating than having to build floor boards, or any of a number of other Wurm objects.

+1, more cave-ins!

[Zakiah 66]

This also it should destroy or at least severely damage anything under it. But what if it collapses on you?

"Ow!  That hurt!"  And you get knocked back to the next safe tile.  Better hope it didn't cave-in and seal your only exit from the mines

And you get wounds on your head that vary based on armour worn on your head.

[Kianga 219]

Supports are extremely irritating to build in numbers and a PITA. Wurm is good enough at being irritating as is, no need to add more. -1.

[darthryan 588]

Supports are extremely irritating to build in numbers and a PITA. Wurm is good enough at being irritating as is, no need to add more. -1.

[Redd 4,281]

The Cave-in system works just fine imo, i dont want to spend half my time on wurm reinforcing every tunnel i used just so it doesnt collapse.

[Hellaciouss 0]

I could of sworn this was the WURM forum, not the WOW forum, yet so many are all wanting things to be as easy as possible. Guess I am going to have to start double checking the url.

Supports were put in the game for a reason, they should need to be used.

[Kadore 926]

I could of sworn this was the WURM forum, not the WOW forum, yet so many are all wanting things to be as easy as possible. Guess I am going to have to start double checking the url.

Quite a few of the people responding played back in the day when combines failed and you lost componants, no boats, and other hardships.

Let's add as much realism as possible, make the entire game tough to play unless have no job or tons of free time and see how things turn out.

All these great realistic ideas sound great on paper but in the end your doing tons more upkeep, work and button pushing, I prefer a game to be relaxing not log into 4 hours of daily chores before can do something fun.

[Hellaciouss 0]

All these great realistic ideas sound great on paper but in the end your doing tons more upkeep, work and button pushing, I prefer a game to be relaxing not log into 4 hours of daily chores before can do something fun.

You must be mistaking an instant gratification game like WoW with a sandbox MMO like WURM. I for one wouldn't go around stating something like that, it makes you look like you're championing for the sandbox to becomes easier and have been for awhile (as well as the others).

And it's not every tile. Its more like every 5 tiles you need to throw up a support. Stop over exaggerating. It's silly and childish.

[Fractal618 22]

In my opinion the longer and narrower a tunnel, the higher percentage of collapse it should be.

I've seen some tunnels that are like a 1x90 and its just unrealistic, though this game is obviously not aimed to be.  Like on Wild eventually it gets harder and harder for new players to settle somewhere a year later because there's so many mines existing and interfeering.

I disagree with this. as an engineer (student) my intuition would be that 1x90 is safer than 9x9. (both about 90 tiles)