JFSOCC

I disagree. If someone invests in crafting, they should be rewarded for their effort. Why shouldn't you be able to get something cool from crafting? And it's not supplanting loot, it's supplementing it.

I did feel the same way about that. There were alternatives to be considered, rather than just "abort"

Hmm, Im not so sure about that. If weve learned anything from prior "degenerative gameplay" discussions its that apparently most players are utterly incapable of controlling their actions and will always take the path of least resistance or whatever rewards the best loot, even if it destroys their own enjoyment of the game. If the only way to get those boss gauntlets is to pry them off his cold dead fingers then that's what everyone will do. the solution is to offer mutually exclusive loot for the different solutions. The combat solution gets loot which helps out in combat, a stealth solution gives you an item which will be helpful in stealth. Not all solutions have to be equally rewarding, but there should never be an obvious "right" answer.

From the IGN wiki for P:E If I could have polled more questions, I'd have asked if there are those with a personally imposed handicap for difficulty. And whether you'd use the ability to change difficulty settings during the game.

This is what crafting could be useful for.

Here's how I see it. A mechanic got announced. Many saw issues with its implementation, they proceeded to point it out. the feedback was read and considered after consideration, the mechanic got altered. Now a few of those who had not spoken against the original implementation start whining "Ooh, you pander to the majority, the game will start being made for the lowest common denominator Except that Obsidian has held its own vision against a majority opinion before, and it's a slippery slope fallacy "Oh you pander to the vocal minority, their voice is not representative of the majority opinion" Ignoring the arguments made by the 'vocal minority', ignoring that it's not a democracy, ignoring the STATEMENT made my Josh Sawyer that after listening to the feedback and arguing it over with the other devs that the development team came to the conclusion themselves. Ignoring the fact that you have NO ****ING IDEA how representative the 'vocal minority' is or isn't. Although, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's going to be about the same percentages of forumgoers as it is the percentages of backers. There are a few here who seem to feel that their opinion must be the majority opinion, that their opinion must be the design, and who have trouble accepting that not everyone can be pleased all the time. Instead of praising obsidian for listening and responding to feedback, you give them grief because they don't do what you want. Which is pretty much the definition of whining. If you truly believe durability should stay in, you have had ample space to argue what makes it such a good mechanic. But I don't see those arguments, the arguments I say are against the decision making process, rather than about the mechanic. It sounds like a bunch of people are upset that they didn't get what they want, even though they didn't know they wanted it until update 58 was released. You can't please everyone all the time. TBH I would have preferred a different crafting system altogether. But I'm ok with this.

that would be a nice feature for crafting: breaking down magic items into magical components. So fictional example: "Fists of Fury" (spiked knuckles which give increased attack speed and a little fire damage) could be broken down into the components "brass" "Speed component" "fire component" And then the recipes for crafting would allow you to say combine 4 fire components to make a more powerful fire component called "flame component" These components could be added to weapons or other items, giving a similar effect but differing by type of item. The higher your crafting skill, the more components you can salvage by breaking down items, the less you need for a recipe, the more recipes you have, the less expensive it becomes to add components to a weapon or item. (IE, say at crafting 1 it costs 1 component for 1 upgrade, 8 for 2 upgrades, and 32 for 3 upgrades added to your weapon. at crafting level 5 it costs 1 component for 1 upgrade, 3 for 2 upgrades, 14 for 3 upgrades.) With crafting no magic item would ever be trash, because you could always break it down for useful components. That's how I would have implemented crafting, or something along those lines.

maybe they can give new meaning to soul food.

There have been large numbers protesting other features which didn't get changed because of it. How do you explain that?

I loved how it could customise weaponry to your preference. For instance, My lightsabers were heavily focused on reflection. I could easily have gone for more damage instead, or focus on more armour penetration. Yes, the only thing I didn't like about the KOTOR2 Crafting system was the interface. lists are... not always easy to oversee.

What I'm concerned about is that there is a very loud minority of backers who I think originate mostly from a few hubs on the net and who will continue to try and take influence on the design. While my own preferences and theirs may align in some points, this is certainly not true for everything. <snip> You have a forum account and typing skills. I'm going to assume you know how to state your arguments. So, you have a voice. I'm sure that if you disagree with others, you are perfectly capable of arguing against their points. -- We should have more controversy sometimes, it brings some activity and inspiration to the forums

I guess that's because the decision was based on arguments, not popularity. Edit: oh, and I believe that if you don't speak up, you don't get listened to. If you were passionate enough to care, argue your position and post it.

SYNERGY I remember that. it could work. Teambuilding

I do, but I would have made crafting a very different animal altogether. I'm ok with the current solution.

First up, you guys are doing a fantastic job keeping your heads cool. I think it's awesome that there has been in-depth discussion on this and that you guys listen to the feedback. I've heard people complain about having too much gold in every game I worked on. Until the end of F:NV when we introduced (entirely optional) GRA unique weapons that cost a fortune. Then people complained that the items cost too much. I would enjoy it if there is some skill to crafting, whether that is player skill or character skill, I don't care. Would you be interested in thinking of alternative ways to use crafting as a skill, or is it too late? Either way, I think the current (altered) solution is very acceptable

Does anyone else think Dreadnought is a better class name than Barbarian?

What I always think about some of the more linear level design thoughts are: Why is it not OK for a player to outsmart the game? Why must a player see that set-piece you've put all attention in? Is it absolutely required for the player to enjoy his experience? Why can't I explore a little more, it's my own damn fault if I fail because of it. I play Roleplaying games to create my own experience, not to have the best solution for problem x.

If there is a benefit to having wealth other than buying things with it, I reckon that would solve a great deal of the problems. Which is why I like the idea of having wealth tie into reputation.

so much negativity. No-one is using their imagination.

It's a difficult thing and many games struggle with it, I'm not sure if I can help, but I'd like to try. It sounds to me like you are looking for more utility. I'd like to use in-game currency for content. IE: You can bribe a guard, pay-off a threat, lobby a politician. Buy an invitation to a large party. Alternative ways to progress in quests. I think it's ok for some items to be more expensive. Alternatively, perhaps wealth can factor into reputation. It becomes a sort of a "You have to be this wealthy to get the attention of the local power players" (my favourite so far, because this means there is some point to hoarding wealth, and combined with other gold sinks a player must choose what to spend their wealth on (if at all) For those who've joined a faction, there may be costs of expanding. Investments for narrative rewards. Perhaps you can scale wealth (especially with multiple currencies, if that idea is still going) Different wealth for different purposes. I liked that you could use NCR or legion money in F:NV as an alternative to bottlecaps. Perhaps the adventure hall offers mercenary companions, although not everyone may like that. Crafting some items may require expensive components, some of which need to be bought. A trick Guild Wars used, which I think may actually have some love with min-maxers, is to make useful tools decently priced, but marginal increases become ever more expensive. the closer you get to perfection the more exponential the price goes up. This way the best gear will always be more expensive than what you sell, without having to change the resale value. So a +1% damage item costs 5 gold, +2 ten gold, +3 sixteen gold, +14% 800 gold, and +15 2500 gold. Decent gear will be available to everyone, but getting all decked out will cost you. And perhaps some vanity items (different wallpaper for your stronghold, a marginally better but awesome looking suit of armour which may elicit some dialogue) Ego stroking the player who uses his wealth this way. Ultimately, I think the main balance issue is that no-one should be able to do everything. You know how in some games a player gets a weapon an ammo he needs right before an encounter? I remember it used to be that we learned to be careful with our resources. 3 shotgunshells and 1 revolver bullet for gordon freeman, meant 2 powerful enemies dead and the crowbar for the rest. If a player is swimming in cash and has no way to spend it, that's no fun either. It becomes a pointless resource. And some risk could be involved too. Yes you can pay 10.000 gold pieces to see the King of Crime at this (not so) reputable bar, but he may not show up, it may be an impostor, he may not like what you have to say. Players could make mistakes. It could be that as the player gets wealthier more demands are being made on him or her. (which a player may or may not indulge) (quest and dialogue triggers based on wealth) Money to enter a competition, clothes to enter a noble dress party, a contribution to the cause, tithes to the church (in return for the title of benefactor, of course) Or quests which blackmail the players for their wealth. There'd be content both for those who hoard their wealth, and those who spend it. Anyway, that's all I can brainstorm up right now.

How does making content mutually exclusive make a game longer, exactly?

I cannot stress enough how much I disagree with this. The logic that P:E should go with a DnD like system is an appeal to tradition. I'm in favour of giving everyone the same amount of information and let them learn a new system. Roleplaying is about character choice, not character ability. If someone wants to have his melee wizard, why the hell not? If someone wants a Rogue who can handle his own in combat, that's fine too. Just make sure that no-one can be good at everything, and let the player make those choices. I have no doubt that with a new ruleset gamebalance will be emergent, and it might go against expectations, but that's what makes it interesting. I prefer an evolution over a rehash.

I don't agree. The crucial difference is that in the standard durability model, the weapons are supposed to be at full durability most of the time. That is their standard default mode, that players expect most of the time. The Sharpened bonus, on the other hand, will be an exception, not the rule. Your weapons usually won't be sharpened. Players won't expect to have their weapons sharp all of the time. making it incredibly grindy if you want to keep your maximum advantage. How is that better?

I'm perfectly OK with making end-game gear something which most merchants cannot afford to buy. Especially with an infinite inventory that's not so much a problem. While it may be more realistic that merchant have all gear available throughout the game, you can also stagger it. "Blockade, our usual wares can only come through once its lifted"

Loss aversion strikes again. In this case there is no difference in -1 or +1, it's still going to be a change of one for the player. Psychology and game mechanics is an interesting mix.