Ixe

I would like to add my voice to many of the concerns over item durability. While the binary means of having something damaged or not damaged reduces the amount of micromanaging needed over repair, I am still not convinced that the mechanics serve the system. As it has been mentioned, durability fits settings like Fallout where resources are scarce and need to be scrounged, not necessarily a high fantasy setting. Otherwise it can be tedium. The point has been argued that durability acts as a scaling money sink to keep player wealth in check. While it can serve this puprose, it has been proposed and I'd like to stand behind the notion that there are ways to do this that better fit within the world and can feel more enjoyable rather than a burden. Some suggestions have been big things to buy to sink money into. While it may require a lot more planning, consider a stronghold where you can optionally invest into different upgrades. Some of these upgrades, a standing army for example, may have upkeep or maintenance costs that can scale as you improve them, This could be on the same level as the item degradation money sink but feels more like you are investing in an upside rather than fighting a downside. I am not necessarily suggesting this specifically as it may require quite a bit of development, but something along that line is perhaps worth considering. Another comment I had seen demonstrated that item degradation can lead to a tactically rich game of resource management. While this may be interesting, it is highly dependent on how well constructed the balance between item degradation and other resources are and whether or not any of this fits coherently within this world. I am uncertain if other updates have proved such a lightning rod for conversation and I would be interested in seeing the developers comment and explain their proposed system further if it is so contentious.