Update #58: Crafting with Tim Cain!

[Cultist]

Well given that it is you guys who wanted the system out, the onus would be on YOU to provide the sufficient reasoning, in the first place would it not? But he has a point here, you have to admit. What this all essentially boils down to is, "I can't be bothered". Next thing we know you guys will want to remove inventory and party management. Since wanting "depth" has now been branded as invalid. 

 

....I'll just go play shooters now.

Initial claim was that Durability will add to the gameplay.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

And please, no cheap demagogy,

"At first, they took our durability, then, they'll take our inventory! Adn then our Party, our children and our wives! STAHP!"

 

So, who won in Dragon age 2?

It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'n'slash interactive movie! they are just a vocal minority!"

[TrashMan]

You act like a mother, who tries to persuade her child to eat food child hates, telling that "It's tasty! Don't say it's not because it is! Eat!".

 

I never said anything about mechanics that will satisfy everyone. But durability got axed for good because people voiced their disapproval. So there was an option - try to fix a mechanics that is, at best, not-so-annoying, or remove controversial mechanics completely.

We won.

 

 

No, I'm acting like someone who tries to convince others to use their brains and think and try to improve upon things instead of dismissing them outright.

 

"At best not-so-annoying"? Well, according to you. Others clearly disagree, but I guess you and ONLY you get to decide what is annoying for all of us.

 

Next thing I know, you'll probably consider leveling annoying.

Or maybe stat alocation..Since it's a chore to click and allocate all those points.

 

Your "victory" - if you can call it that - is a hollow one.

[TrashMan]

Initial claim was that Durability will add to the gameplay.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

 

Durabiltiy CAN add to the gameplay.

That is a self-evident and non-negotiable.

The specifics of it are another matter.

 

but are peopel liek oyu even interested in specific? Doesn't look like it.

 

 

 

And please, no cheap demagogy,

"At first, they took our durability, then, they'll take our inventory! Adn then our Party, our children and our wives! STAHP!"

 

Oh and what would you call "durabiltiy sucked in X! Therefore it will suck in Y and can ONLY suck in Y."

 

 

 

It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'n'slash interactive movie! they are just a vocal minority!"

 

Except practicly no one on the Bio forums was actually rooting the DA2 twitch-combat, awesome-bottun system.

The ones who did were a vocal minority - like the anti-durability crowd here.

[Cultist]

No, I'm acting like someone who tries to convince others to use their brains and think and try to improve upon things instead of dismissing them outright.

"At best not-so-annoying"? Well, according to you. Others clearly disagree, but I guess you and ONLY you get to decide what is annoying for all of us.

Next thing I know, you'll probably consider leveling annoying.

Or maybe stat alocation..Since it's a chore to click and allocate all those points.

Your "victory" - if you can call it that - is a hollow one.

I am voicing my opinion on the matter. it happens that enough people voiced their opinion on the matter of durability and crafting to make developers change their mind.

And yes, that is according to me. I am speaking for myself. If something anoy me then, what a surprise, I speak against it! You learn new thing evey day!

When I will consider leveling annoying, I will talk about it. I suppose I'll have a chance in one of the upcoming Updates.

And by the way, funny thing, I already created atopic about stat allocation in cRPG forum, and got some of Josh' clarification about it.

My "victory" is simply removal of system that anoyed me. Nothing more.

[TrashMan]

Your "victory" is a blow to the depth and creativy.

Your "victory" is a celebration of ignorance and fear.

 

Like I said - all you did was complain. You never attempted to ponder on how to make that system work or how to improve it.

[Cultist]

"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

 

[Malekith]

Except practicly no one on the Bio forums was actually rooting the DA2 twitch-combat, awesome-bottun system.

The ones who did were a vocal minority - like the anti-durability crowd here.

 

Are you an idiot? Half the BSN considers DA2 combat better than DA:O's. Even here Karkarov and some others have said that DA2 combat is better than IE combat.

That you and i dislike it is irrelevant. Many people like it better.

[rjshae]

The biggest argument I've seen against durability is that it "punishes" players. To me that's a 'WTF?' argument, but okay. If a RPG removes all mechanics that "punish" a player, then get ready for some milque-toast runs because your enemies are going to be pure cannon fodder. Disease requires players to go and get treatment--a punishment, so make it go away nice and easy. Poison degrades player performance and requires a cure--a punishment; make it vanish after a rest. Petrification is a pure kill-joy--make it easy to reboot. Get rid of food and water requirements, eliminate encumbrance effects, make levelling up easy: these are all steps to avoid "punishing" a player. It's sad, but I guess that's the trend in the gaming industry.

 

No matter. It's a whole lot of fuss over what's essentially a pretty minor feature. I could live with it; I can live without it.

[Undecaf]

 If a RPG removes all mechanics that "punish" a player, then get ready for some milque-toast runs because your enemies are going to be pure cannon fodder. Disease requires players to go and get treatment--a punishment, so make it go away nice and easy. Poison degrades player performance and requires a cure--a punishment; make it vanish after a rest. Petrification is a pure kill-joy--make it easy to reboot. Get rid of food and water requirements, eliminate encumbrance effects, make levelling up easy: these are all steps to avoid "punishing" a player. It's sad, but I guess that's the trend in the gaming industry.

 

Sounds like something Bethesda would do. I doubt that's the trend were heading just yet even if durability and crafting (and their possibly deepening additions to the gameplay) got neutered.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Undecaf

[Malekith]

Tedious =! difficult.

No one asks for an easy game.Just not an annoying one.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Malekith

[Nonek]

A long, long time ago,  I can still remember how that mechanic used to make me smile.

And I knew that if I had the chance, my armour and sword I would enhance, and maybe i'd be more effective for a while.

But Update #58 made me shiver, with the butthurt it delivered.

Bearded on their doorstep, Obsidian feared a misstep.

I can't remember if I cried, when I read about craftings wounded pride.

Something touched me deep inside, the day that durability died.

 

So bye-bye rusty chainmail clad guy.

Oil and polish your plate armour, there's no need it can't die.

And leather can survive a blast furnace and not fry.

Because durabilities got to die.

Yeah durabilities got to die.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Nonek

[Chrononaut]

Tedious =! difficult.

No one asks for an easy game.Just not an annoying one.

Again, "tedious" is a completely nonobjective way to criticize a game mechanic. What is "tedious" to one person is challenging, and interesting, to another. It's completely based on personal preference. 

 

I've noted that when younger more casual gamers do pseudo-criticisms of older RPG's, the buzzword is always "tedious" or "annoying" with no explanation given.

 

It's not surprising of course, we're dealing with the MMO and Diablo III generation after all, the modus-operandi of RPG design in 2013 is POWER FANTASY.

[Killyox]

I just hope it doesn't end up as in case of Skyrim. Blacksmithing + Enchanting = god mode infinite power loop

[Lucidbro]

 

Well given that it is you guys who wanted the system out, the onus would be on YOU to provide the sufficient reasoning, in the first place would it not? But he has a point here, you have to admit. What this all essentially boils down to is, "I can't be bothered". Next thing we know you guys will want to remove inventory and party management. Since wanting "depth" has now been branded as invalid. 

 

....I'll just go play shooters now.

Initial claim was that Durability will add to the gameplay.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed"

And please, no cheap demagogy,

"At first, they took our durability, then, they'll take our inventory! Adn then our Party, our children and our wives! STAHP!"

 

So, who won in Dragon age 2?

It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'n'slash interactive movie! they are just a vocal minority!"

 

 

I fail to see why durability could not add to gameplay. Surely you cannot have such a limited imagination as to not see at least one potential positive application of it.

 

About DA2, as TrashMan already pointed out the changes that were made in development were actually not endorsed by the community. Bioware stated during marketing that they were trying to draw in different crowds. The end product is what it is. But do not make the mistake of assuming that DA:O fans had anything to do with it.

 

 

Except practicly no one on the Bio forums was actually rooting the DA2 twitch-combat, awesome-bottun system.

The ones who did were a vocal minority - like the anti-durability crowd here.

 

Are you an idiot? Half the BSN considers DA2 combat better than DA:O's. Even here Karkarov and some others have said that DA2 combat is better than IE combat.

That you and i dislike it is irrelevant. Many people like it better.

 

 

That is a direct result of alienating the crowd it was originally meant to cater to. The grand goal of DA2 was to "press a button to see something awesome happen". The people who would have liked a slower paced and more ponderous combat are no longer on board, hence the shift in taste.

[Adhin]

I'm happy to see it gone but it 'can' add to gameplay. To me, though, I haven't seen a durability system that makes any sense and ultimately DnD doesn't have one. It has an HP system for weapons that only degrades if the weapons directly attacked via some method in which case the attacker has to overcome the weapons DR to cause any damage or theres save rolls involved to see if the weapon avoids being broken. And when its broken its broke, you get a new one... except im sure in some DM oriented situation where it was an epic blade and you go on an adventure to have it magically lego'ed back together.

 

And no, outside of rustmonsters it doesn't make much sense to roll into a dungeon with 3 swords cause one might break. That made sense in BG1 because all the ore making all the weapons where so heavily tainted they where ****ty and brittle and would break for no good reason. A sword or any other weapon should last you through maaaany battles. If it breaks in a battle its because of many, many years or some specific circumstance happened that snapped the blade, not because you forgot to smithy up it s'more everytime you hit town.

 

Maintenance of a sword and most other weapons is literally wipe it down, make sure its not rusting and sharpen it...presto your done. It's not throwing it back at a forge. The idea of hitting up a blacksmith to repair your sword cause you did some combat is a silly concept found in video games because they need a constant money sync. It's why it was in originally in PE, they took it out because folks here didn't really want it (its not in IE games, or DnD as a whole) and Sawyer just came to terms with either finding a new money sync or not worrying to much about the overall economy end game.

 

It's not some giant mark against creativity to remove an extremely common money sync but it could be used in some interesting ways to add more depth to a game (a very small amount of depth)... but outside of making you throw the weapon away or have it melted down and completely reforged the idea of its kinda silly. That or a rag n wetstone should be all you need to 'fix' weapons out in the field. But that ruins the idea of it being a money sync and then completely ruins the reason the mechanic has ever existed in the first place.

[Hassat Hunter]

The change of frequency and the way degradation is applied to something more closer to real life and less ..."tedious" is hardly  a bad move

Now even YOU agree item degredation is 'tedious'. If the hardest of hardest pro-guy even admits it. Well, I think the discussion is over? (Oh how I wish).

 

Also, it's quite funny the 'improvement' would be to make it ultra-rare. If it's ultra-rare, what's the point of having it at all. It's not far from ultra-rare to not at all. Yet ultra-rare is super-good and 'not at all' is the domain of retarded morons (your words).

I'd be the last person to advocate BioWare's "fixing" methods (Inventory in ME1 doesn't work quite well, nuke it!) but if they are coming here saying they want other players to go into your world and kill your quest-givers I certainly wont go "wait a second, let's improve upon that" but the full out "that's the worst idea ever. Screw that!"

It is. Because it makes sense. What makes sense is a good argument.

Yes, the amounts of fun to be had if each and every dungeon in the game you broke 2 weapons. I see some pro's talking going in a dungeon and risking breakage and what it would add.

But then imagine... it's a 50 HOUR (or more) game. It has dozens and dozens of dungeons and areas. You tell me seriously you want to have your weapon risk breaking each and every time? It may sound good on paper for you for one dungeon, but then it suddenly turns out there are 100 dungeons. Are you still thinking it fun if your weapons break in each one of them?

There's also a saying;

"Beware of what you ask for"

Which can rear it's ugly head if you don't look too far along the path.

Archers had short swords

For when their bow broke or when enemies came into melee range. Guess which of the 2 is still in the game, still probably making it a good idea for ranged heroes to carry backup, or keep enemies away from their melee range.

So, this is already in, without durability. Let's move on...

Knights had a secondary weapon and a dagger in adition to their man weapon.

This will most definitely also be in PE. Albeit in real knights might not have a weapon for zombies and another for skeleton the light, medium, heavy, slashing, piercing, crushing mechanics of PE make it a good idea for warriors to dual-spec to more than one type of offensive weaponry. As such, they will probably carry alternatives for other armor types, even if in group base so others could take that role.

And again, without durability, this "realism" is in the game. We're on a roll here...

and this is possibly also a in-game move/talent

While I agree knocking out someone's weapon and having it then be on the ground would be a cool action or something to take into account (hey, you gave a good idea for the devs!), I fail to see why this would not be possible without durability. Because, well, it's perfectly able to.

Having a backup makes sense. Going into prolonged comabt wihout it doesn't.

The joys of battling Dragons in BG. Fight took long. Now imagine in that single battle you need to switch your weapon 3 times due to breakage. Nope, not so much fun anymore is it. And what would it add to the fight. I... I don't know...

If your weapon breaks while in the dungeon no one is FORCING you to go back to town to re-forge it. You have a backup, the dungon is pefectly doable with it. You are given a choice. A credible, sensible, logical choice.

One you do not want to even exist.

Exept if, like some want, you backup will fail miserable too. And it still forces you to repair someday unless you want to switch weapons all the damn time.

So you get presented with the option; Massive item swapping or repair. The first is not really viable, so there's only one "option" remaining. When there's only one option to me there is no option. It's forced.

 

Let's say you fight Kangaxx. And your +4 weapon breaks. Can you merely use your +3 backup? Nope, forced to go back. Now say you are fighting trolls. So fire weapon. And it breaks and the other is regular. Option?

In the end you will end up with a backup of EACH type. Which clutters enormally. And I assume your solution would be to 'just not make enemies immune, so you can use all weapons albeit with a penalty'. And to me, THAT kind of major strategical loss is unforgivable. It's giving a solution to an issue which doesn't exist just to keep durability in, which is on itself a poor solution. A branching line of errors ready to be piled up on each other.

And yes, so far do I think. So far are developers forced to think. The bigger picture. Your solution which you think is good and realism-improving clashing with another system, leading to an incrux of annoyance and forced 'options' on the player. And that, as OE also has seen, would be bad.

Wut the hell you on son?

Weariness? When have I ever meantioned that? Or infinite gold economy?

There are others preaching pro-durability. I would suggest reading posts the similar minded, and you would realise exactly who that was aimed for. It's not all about you here.

Again, you have such a limited view. Tunnel vision. It's sad.

I could say the same about you. But I'm not being mean and disgrading to others like you, so I don't.

Well given that it is you guys who wanted the system out, the onus would be on YOU to provide the sufficient reasoning, in the first place would it not?

We did, the devs agreed, it's out. It's now up to you guys to give us all the increased benefits it could give us if you want to see it back. Keeping in mind we're not really the ones you should convince, the Project: Eternity team is the one you do.

[Hassat Hunter]

What this all essentially boils down to is, "I can't be bothered".

What it boils down to is... "What does it add to the game?" or "Is this the best solution to the problem."

Unlike apparently common belief that all we said is "We hate durability. Remove it. Dur." it's the argumentation of what little it would add gameplaywise, and if the problem it was aimed to fix wasn't less bad that the fix, the 'medicine being worse than the cure' issue. That the argumentation of the team wasn't really convincing and just boiled down to 'we added it in to be a goldsink.'

That this addition wouldn't add interesting gameplay. Or increased depth (even if a lot of people are screaming "You hate depth. This is the reason we get shallow games today!"). That it was only put up for all the wrong reasons. If you fail to realise that, I'm sorry, but that's the underlying dillema at stake here.

The biggest argument I've seen against durability is that it "punishes" players. To me that's a 'WTF?' argument, but okay. If a RPG removes all mechanics that "punish" a player, then get ready for some milque-toast runs because your enemies are going to be pure cannon fodder. Disease requires players to go and get treatment--a punishment, so make it go away nice and easy. Poison degrades player performance and requires a cure--a punishment; make it vanish after a rest. Petrification is a pure kill-joy--make it easy to reboot. Get rid of food and water requirements, eliminate encumbrance effects, make levelling up easy: these are all steps to avoid "punishing" a player. It's sad, but I guess that's the trend in the gaming industry.

There's a big difference between making combat more strategical and interesting and difficult, filled with different builds and weapons and spells and abilties and enemies and the non-combat gameplay. You just said all kinds of combat stuff should be taken out since one out-of-combat 'punishment' got removed. Apples and oranges. Remember old adventures? When you could die if taking improper actions? Where if you missed an item you got stuck hours later unable to get them. And modern day adventures kinda find it bad when you do that? Doesn't mean the puzzles can go easier on you, or the game isn't made to challenge the player. They just taken out the frustration of finding out that you have to re-do 20 hours because the game's just build like that. So there's that difference between being difficult and punishing. The one trying to push you forward (this game is a challenge, let's give it my all to beat this fight) and the others is making you stop playing (So I needed the sword, now locked away forever in a firey pit of lava to continue the game and have to restart, screw that). The difference between challenging (pfew, I survived that fight) and annoying/punishing (oh dammit, now I have to do a quick-time event or do that fight all over again)

[Hassat Hunter]

 

It is ironic that you set DA2 as example. Because BioWare acted exactly like durability apologists wanted - "Ignore all feedback, stick with that idea of hack'n'slash interactive movie! they are just a vocal minority!"

About DA2, as TrashMan already pointed out the changes that were made in development were actually not endorsed by the community. Bioware stated during marketing that they were trying to draw in different crowds. The end product is what it is. But do not make the mistake of assuming that DA:O fans had anything to do with it.

 

Are you guys on purpose not reading it right?

That's the entire POINT Cultist made.

 

The DA:O fans spoke out against it, BioWare stood their ground (like you guys want Obsidian to do). And DA2 was the result.

Incase that wasn't clear... which it wasn't, based on the replies...

Edited July 8, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Lucidbro]

I'm happy to see it gone but it 'can' add to gameplay. To me, though, I haven't seen a durability system that makes any sense and ultimately DnD doesn't have one. It has an HP system for weapons that only degrades if the weapons directly attacked via some method in which case the attacker has to overcome the weapons DR to cause any damage or theres save rolls involved to see if the weapon avoids being broken. And when its broken its broke, you get a new one... except im sure in some DM oriented situation where it was an epic blade and you go on an adventure to have it magically lego'ed back together.

 

And no, outside of rustmonsters it doesn't make much sense to roll into a dungeon with 3 swords cause one might break. That made sense in BG1 because all the ore making all the weapons where so heavily tainted they where ****ty and brittle and would break for no good reason. A sword or any other weapon should last you through maaaany battles. If it breaks in a battle its because of many, many years or some specific circumstance happened that snapped the blade, not because you forgot to smithy up it s'more everytime you hit town.

 

Maintenance of a sword and most other weapons is literally wipe it down, make sure its not rusting and sharpen it...presto your done. It's not throwing it back at a forge. The idea of hitting up a blacksmith to repair your sword cause you did some combat is a silly concept found in video games because they need a constant money sync. It's why it was in originally in PE, they took it out because folks here didn't really want it (its not in IE games, or DnD as a whole) and Sawyer just came to terms with either finding a new money sync or not worrying to much about the overall economy end game.

 

It's not some giant mark against creativity to remove an extremely common money sync but it could be used in some interesting ways to add more depth to a game (a very small amount of depth)... but outside of making you throw the weapon away or have it melted down and completely reforged the idea of its kinda silly. That or a rag n wetstone should be all you need to 'fix' weapons out in the field. But that ruins the idea of it being a money sync and then completely ruins the reason the mechanic has ever existed in the first place.

 

Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.

[rjshae]

Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.

 

They could still implement the rough equivalent by allowing disarm-type attacks, along with damaged loot capability. But I suppose that would be "punishing" the player.

[Gfted1]

Tis a shame. I guess we'll never know the joy of repairing 2-3 weapon sets x 6 people, per rest. YOU DAMN DIRTY APES!

[Sacred_Path]

Tis a shame. I guess we'll never know the joy of repairing 2-3 weapon sets x 6 people, per rest. YOU DAMN DIRTY APES!

You won't have 6 people to care about until 2/3 (?) into the game.

 

Hav fun beautifying your dollhouse stronghold instead

[Lucidbro]

 

 

What it boils down to is... "What does it add to the game?" or "Is this the best solution to the problem."

Unlike apparently common belief that all we said is "We hate durability. Remove it. Dur." it's the argumentation of what little it would add gameplaywise, and if the problem it was aimed to fix wasn't less bad that the fix, the 'medicine being worse than the cure' issue. That the argumentation of the team wasn't really convincing and just boiled down to 'we added it in to be a goldsink.'

That this addition wouldn't add interesting gameplay. Or increased depth (even if a lot of people are screaming "You hate depth. This is the reason we get shallow games today!"). That it was only put up for all the wrong reasons. If you fail to realise that, I'm sorry, but that's the underlying dillema at stake here.

 

Well, what you're referring to here is something quite different.

The reason you dislike the system still hasn't changed, in fact, you don't even mention it. Now, lets say you don't think it adds to the game, fine. Others think it does, no skin off of your back. Same for it being the best solution to whatever problem you perceive, what does it mean in practice? You don't like it because it helps keeps player wealth in check? So, the in-game reason for your disapproval of the system would translate to "I want to have a great amount of money"? So, your justification for depriving a potentially great system for a good amount of people is something that you could actually add to your save game by yourself in minutes (money).. No, I don't think so. I really hope you're not that selfish.

 

So, when you say that "the medicine is worse than the cure", that's why you don't like the durability system. But what does it mean in practice, I wonder? I'll be pleasantly surprised if you come up with something other than "I can't be bothered to go repair my gear, when it's damaged"

 

There is no dilemma in having a system in place for the 'wrong' reasons, as long as the system is enjoyable. I will say however that I think the system could and should have been further improved, but I can't agree with removing it entirely.

 

 

 

There's a big difference between making combat more strategical and interesting and difficult, filled with different builds and weapons and spells and abilties and enemies and the non-combat gameplay. You just said all kinds of combat stuff should be taken out since one out-of-combat 'punishment' got removed. Apples and oranges. Remember old adventures? When you could die if taking improper actions? Where if you missed an item you got stuck hours later unable to get them. And modern day adventures kinda find it bad when you do that? Doesn't mean the puzzles can go easier on you, or the game isn't made to challenge the player. They just taken out the frustration of finding out that you have to re-do 20 hours because the game's just build like that. So there's that difference between being difficult and punishing. The one trying to push you forward (this game is a challenge, let's give it my all to beat this fight) and the others is making you stop playing (So I needed the sword, now locked away forever in a firey pit of lava to continue the game and have to restart, screw that). The difference between challenging (pfew, I survived that fight) and annoying/punishing (oh dammit, now I have to do a quick-time event or do that fight all over again)

 

What's annoying and punishing to others can be tactic and preparation to others, think potions in The Witcher. Perhaps the system suggested by Obsidian wasn't quite the same thing, but I was hoping for something along those lines. For instance preparing your gear before venturing into a many level dungeon.

 

 

 

Are you guys on purpose not reading it right?

That's the entire POINT Cultist made.

 

The DA:O fans spoke out against it, BioWare stood their ground (like you guys want Obsidian to do). And DA2 was the result.

Incase that wasn't clear... which it wasn't, based on the replies...

 

Hah, well yes there's a mistake. But that's a somewhat of an incorrect accounting of the whole ordeal.. The thing is Bioware emphasized that they listened to "feedback", yet there was no such feedback, so they were actually working towards broadening the audience of the game, which is obviously not what's happening here. And second, the fans were actually only able to speak about all of the things that went wrong after they had their hands on the game.. DA 2 wasn't a kickstarter. So, It wasn't really a vocal minority versus Bioware as was implied.

[Lysen]

A long, long time ago,  I can still remember how that mechanic used to make me smile.

And I knew that if I had the chance, my armour and sword I would enhance, and maybe i'd be more effective for a while.

But Update #58 made me shiver, with the butthurt it delivered.

Bearded on their doorstep, Obsidian feared a misstep.

I can't remember if I cried, when I read about craftings wounded pride.

Something touched me deep inside, the day that durability died.

 

So bye-bye rusty chainmail clad guy.

Oil and polish your plate armour, there's no need it can't die.

And leather can survive a blast furnace and not fry.

Because durabilities got to die.

Yeah durabilities got to die.

 

You are my favourite poster here, sir.

[Lucidbro]

 

Well, I understand what you're saying but you're not taking the fantasy setting into account. It's not at all unreasonable to think you might come across something that could shatter and break your common weapons, much less armor or shields, something that you did not touch on. After all, it was not uncommon to go through shields even back in the Medieval period.

 

They could still implement the rough equivalent by allowing disarm-type attacks, along with damaged loot capability. But I suppose that would be "punishing" the player.

 

 

We want no part of that here, sir.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Lucidbro