Update #58: Crafting with Tim Cain!

[Lucidbro]

snip-

 

I won't bother going through every single quotation. But the jist here is that you assume that there won't be any fine tuning of the durability system. I'll concur on there being little reason to break your equipment on the same enemy numerous times in a single fight, I think it's safe to say none of us want that. But you can make it sensible, by carrying a more durable weapon, adjusting durability rates or adding a 'breaking threshold' so if Satan crits you, your weapon/shield is in tatters, just from the top of my head. And a specific ruleset for magical weapons if need be.

 

Also you should keep in mind you don't have to solo this game, so against trolls, naturally you could use 'fire magic', or a party members weapon, not a big deal. The quote about Knights and Archers was meant to point out the fact that actual real people have used backup weapons to compensate losing or breaking your main one. Not, having different ones for specific occasions (which, of course took place as well.) 

You have all these classes that do not rely on weapons and armor, which is something that people do not seem to be taking into account at all. How many characters' equipment you believe you'll have to keep in shape at all times? It's of course subjective, but it cannot be as big of a burden as people are making it out to be.

 

As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?

[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.

We want no part of that here, sir.

 

Go get 'em tiger.

[Gfted1]

As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons. This is being implemented because they are also adding "flavor" by each type of weapon (crushing, piercing, slashing) being "best" against certain types of armor. (IE: War hammers (crushing) are better than a dagger (piercing) against plate armor.) So your characters will be constantly be switching weapon sets, even within the same battle.

[rjshae]

 

As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons. This is being implemented because they are also adding "flavor" by each type of weapon (crushing, piercing, slashing) being "best" against certain types of armor. (IE: War hammers (crushing) are better than a dagger (piercing) against plate armor.) So your characters will be constantly be switching weapon sets, even within the same battle.

 

I'm hopeful that sort of thing can be handled by the AI for the most part. Guess we'll see...

[SophosTheWise]

 

(IE: War hammers (crushing) are better than a dagger (piercing) against plate armor.) So your characters will be constantly be switching weapon sets, even within the same battle.

 

There's a dagger that likes to have a word with you...

 

[Gfted1]

There's a dagger that likes to have a word with you...

Hehe, it was just an example. Don't shank me bro!

[Adhin]

@Lucidbro: I have, maybe not in that exact post but in the one prior (and in other threads). That's what the save throw is for, for stuff like rustmonsters and the like. Ultimately my point stands that the idea of a durability system is flawed outside of a money sync. If said thing trashes your shield it becomes crappy, 'if' you can still use it you will cause its maybe still better then no shield. No one is going to literally carry around 5 shields with them (per individual) just incase one brakes on them, it makes less sense then the crazy abstract inventory systems we use in RPG's. And just because we use crazy abstract inventories doesn't make it make sense to carry around a 'whole' other set of armor incase crazy demon guy punchs you in the chest.

 

The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense would be a sharpening system for edged weapons, at which point it would only effect edged weapons and would leave blunts and ranged stuff out of the system making it a bit lopsided. But ultimately some kinda sharpening system where you 'sharpen' the blade and that degrades over time till its blunt doing less damage. But like I said that would be edge weapons only. I mean polishing up your mace doesn't make it any more heavy or effective at bashing skulls... still good idea to keep it from rusting but that's about it really.

 

Durability systems don't make sense, they're not anymore realistic or believable. To do that would be kinda crazy which is why DnD has it, but makes it all fringe cases for why it would happen. DM has to be a **** to throw rustmonsters at you, or has something specific in mind to that where it wont cause to many problems for whats to come (though they're probably just being a ****). For gameplay reasons its just less of a pain for everyone if there isn't a durability system at all as far as im concerned. Less work for them, less work for us for something that is a made up thing to help with gold issues in vidjagames.

[Amentep]

 

As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons. This is being implemented because they are also adding "flavor" by each type of weapon (crushing, piercing, slashing) being "best" against certain types of armor. (IE: War hammers (crushing) are better than a dagger (piercing) against plate armor.) So your characters will be constantly be switching weapon sets, even within the same battle.

 

Unless its ranged vs melee I'm never crazy about micromanaging my weapons.

[rjshae]

The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense would be a sharpening system for edged weapons, at which point it would only effect edged weapons and would leave blunts and ranged stuff out of the system making it a bit lopsided. But ultimately some kinda sharpening system where you 'sharpen' the blade and that degrades over time till its blunt doing less damage. But like I said that would be edge weapons only. I mean polishing up your mace doesn't make it any more heavy or effective at bashing skulls... still good idea to keep it from rusting but that's about it really.

 

Presumably the same internal mechanic that is avoiding durability issues is also working to maintain a honed edge. Hence a separate sharpening system doesn't really buy you anything new. It's apparently only the effects within a combat session that matter with regard to your equipment quality and availability.

[Adhin]

Yeah that was kinda my point rjshae. It exists as a gold sync, trying to make it make more sense ultimately kills the gold sync factor. What they had literally was just an abstract sharpening system that worked for armor and any kind of weapon. I don't think it was a bad thing to have in, ultimately, but I think folks keep taking it like it was some kinda crazy realistic system that was taken out for no good reason when ultimately it existed for the games economy sake, not the players.

 

I've said it before  in here plenty of times, gold syncs are a good thing, and durability repair is a very common and effective way to do that. But I also don't think an IE style game really needs one, just avoid ME1 style credit flow and give us more interesting stuff to buy both with equipment and the stronghold and it'll all work out.

[Lucidbro]

@Lucidbro: I have, maybe not in that exact post but in the one prior (and in other threads). That's what the save throw is for, for stuff like rustmonsters and the like. Ultimately my point stands that the idea of a durability system is flawed outside of a money sync. If said thing trashes your shield it becomes crappy, 'if' you can still use it you will cause its maybe still better then no shield. No one is going to literally carry around 5 shields with them (per individual) just incase one brakes on them, it makes less sense then the crazy abstract inventory systems we use in RPG's. And just because we use crazy abstract inventories doesn't make it make sense to carry around a 'whole' other set of armor incase crazy demon guy punchs you in the chest.

 

The only thing I can think of that makes any real sense would be a sharpening system for edged weapons, at which point it would only effect edged weapons and would leave blunts and ranged stuff out of the system making it a bit lopsided. But ultimately some kinda sharpening system where you 'sharpen' the blade and that degrades over time till its blunt doing less damage. But like I said that would be edge weapons only. I mean polishing up your mace doesn't make it any more heavy or effective at bashing skulls... still good idea to keep it from rusting but that's about it really.

 

Durability systems don't make sense, they're not anymore realistic or believable. To do that would be kinda crazy which is why DnD has it, but makes it all fringe cases for why it would happen. DM has to be a **** to throw rustmonsters at you, or has something specific in mind to that where it wont cause to many problems for whats to come (though they're probably just being a ****). For gameplay reasons its just less of a pain for everyone if there isn't a durability system at all as far as im concerned. Less work for them, less work for us for something that is a made up thing to help with gold issues in vidjagames.

 

Well, there's a pretty good idea actually. Keeping a sharp sword versus the increased innate durability of blunt weapons. I like it (more of a reliable static damage versus a higher damage but deteriorating performance, then you add in the encounter specific weaknesses to further increase the layers of choosing your speciality).  So here, you yourself gave a suggestion that would add gameplay depth and choice. But then you proceed to belittle that fact by stating that durability is only there to help with the gold issue.. 

 

About breaking multiple shields and such, I think I already stated that I think that's overkill and wouldn't endorse that. But can't you see any middle ground there? Between no durability system and carrying 5 shields out of fear of them all breaking?

Edited July 8, 2013 by Lucidbro

[Adhin]

Ahh I think your misunderstanding me a tad bit. I'm definitely not belittling it by saying they're gold syncs. That is what they are, it is why they exist and I absolutely hold gold syncs as good features. They're important to keeping a constant-gold-flow economy from imploding on them selves. ME1 didn't have a single one, it was all items found (for the most apart) with a mass overflow of credits till you maxed out before the midway point of the damn game... it was horrible, that game needed less credit flow and waay more gold syncs.

 

I think a durability system is a good idea, I'm just saying its not believable, its abstract, just like are inventory systems. All I was trying to get across is saying it adds depth and immersion is silly as its unrealistic. Frankly what they had 'was' the middle ground and I would of been happy with it. I'd of also liked a maintenance kit to let us repair at camps instead of having to go to a black smith but that would remove the whole gold sync reasoning for it being there in the first place.

 

I like durability systems, I like gold syncs, but I think in this case they where unnecessary.

[Lucidbro]

Ahh I think your misunderstanding me a tad bit. I'm definitely not belittling it by saying they're gold syncs. That is what they are, it is why they exist and I absolutely hold gold syncs as good features. They're important to keeping a constant-gold-flow economy from imploding on them selves. ME1 didn't have a single one, it was all items found (for the most apart) with a mass overflow of credits till you maxed out before the midway point of the damn game... it was horrible, that game needed less credit flow and waay more gold syncs.

 

I think a durability system is a good idea, I'm just saying its not believable, its abstract, just like are inventory systems. All I was trying to get across is saying it adds depth and immersion is silly as its unrealistic. Frankly what they had 'was' the middle ground and I would of been happy with it. I'd of also liked a maintenance kit to let us repair at camps instead of having to go to a black smith but that would remove the whole gold sync reasoning for it being there in the first place.

 

I like durability systems, I like gold syncs, but I think in this case they where unnecessary.

 

There's a few things here that I have differing opinions on but I don't want to seem like I'm out to nail you to a cross, so I'll just leave it at that. It's enough for me that you don't outright dismiss the system out of some unreasonable, assumed personal inconvenience.

[rjshae]

Well, there's a pretty good idea actually. Keeping a sharp sword versus the increased innate durability of blunt weapons. I like it (more of a reliable static damage versus a higher damage but deteriorating performance, then you add in the encounter specific weaknesses to further increase the layers of choosing your speciality).  So here, you yourself gave a suggestion that would add gameplay depth and choice. But then you proceed to belittle that fact by stating that durability is only there to help with the gold issue.. 

 

About breaking multiple shields and such, I think I already stated that I think that's overkill and wouldn't endorse that. But can't you see any middle ground there? Between no durability system and carrying 5 shields out of fear of them all breaking?

 

Since item durability is now being abstracted, I suppose one might think of the limited size of the equipment inventory as modelling the need for replacement parts as you describe. Instead of having slots for five breakable shields, useable in different situations, you may now only get one or two slots for unbreakable shields.

 

Perhaps the designers will allow you to select an ability to individually gain extra equipment slots, making that the equivalent of being able to better maintain and transport your equipment?

[Lephys]

Tedious =! difficult.

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

Annoyance is a potential factor from an unbalanced system. Something's mere existence in a game (such as the management of durability) isn't inherently annoying, just because. If it was, HP would be annoying, simply because it's basically life management. But it's not annoying, because there are actually good reasons for it to be managed, and it provides the ability to fail or do better/worse in combat, allowing for tactical decisions and preparations to possess significance. So, maybe it IS annoying... that you have to manage HP. But what it provides is a lot better than the alternative: Invincible people who can't get hurt, ever.

 

In short, there's got to be something beyond "I don't like the fact that I have to manage a finite thing, because that's annoying" in order to make the decision that a given system/implementation is without value and is simply annoying.

[Adhin]

I agree Lephys, I like to think that wasn't there only reason... pretty sure it had to do with a combination of folks vocally not wanting it and not needing a gold sync that bad.

[AW8]

I'd like a sincere answer to this question, though I know not all of you are of the same mind: what do you want to spend (in-game) money on?

 

If I rob the Vailian National Bank and become Vilified by Ancenze, I expect there to be something worthwhile to use my money for, instead of just being able to buy spare gear.

 

Sure I want unique items in dungeons, but I also want some unique items in stores, with a silly expensive price tag. Stuff you can almost only afford if you've chosen every economical decision in your entire playthrough. Weapons with a unique description and a unique effect. They only need to be noticably better than their cheaper counterparts, not so drastically better that they dwarf normal weapons in damage.

 

For the less extravagant transactions, I'd like to buy normal gear. The entire catalogue of armor doesn't need to be available, but it'd be cool to buy a few useful gear pieces from the first merchant we stumble upon, for a small but considerable sum for the start of the game.

 

I love how in the start of Morrowind, you receive a small sum of gold and is directed to Arrille's Tradehouse. He offers a wide array of uncomplete low-level armor sets out of which you'll be able to afford at least 2 pieces and a cheap weapon. I love how you're able to buy your own first gear from a merchant, instead of looting it from a dead body.

 

So what I want to spend money on is worthwhile gear in price ranges spanning from considerable to astronomic. If you're able to buy a complete armor set for an unsignificant amount of money, then the feeling left with the player is just that: Insignificance.

Edited July 8, 2013 by AW8

[Lephys]

I agree Lephys, I like to think that wasn't there only reason... pretty sure it had to do with a combination of folks vocally not wanting it and not needing a gold sync that bad.

I know. I just... I highly encourage people to explain how and why something's annoying despite what it brings to the table, rather than stating it's annoying, as I'm sure 99.9% of people here will agree that having to manage your hitpoints (or having to manage your ammo or something) is no less fundamentally annoying than having to manage your gear's "hitpoints."

 

"It doesn't please me to keep up with declining numbers of finite things" is clearly not at all the problem here. The game that addresses that "problem" is the game that has absolutely no limitations or obstacles in it, whatsoever, and requires absolutely no effort.

 

And this isn't "Oh, you don't like durability? Well I do, so YOU'RE WRONG AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR LIES!" or anything. I like the idea of durability, and have an interest in figuring out the best way to implement such a thing into such a game (even if they're not going to do it in P:E; it's just plain nice to know, and enjoyable to discuss and figure out with other also-interested individuals). So, it's not that I don't want to hear people disliking durability. I just want to hear actual reasons to dislike durability, and what makes it problematic, as separate from what doesn't. "management is annoying" doesn't make it a problem, like I said, but that doesn't mean nothing makes it a problem. But, I want to actually work out what does, as accurately as possible, rather than sit around debating whether or not we should all love or hate durability.

 

And if you're (general you, not someone specific) not interested in specifically why it's a problem or isn't a problem, and how to make it not a problem, or less of a problem, etc. (what about a specific implementation affects the rest of the game and such), then there's really nothing constructive to be gained from your adding your "I, TOO, subjectively wish ill upon the house of Durability!" to the list, as they've already made up their minds.

 

I urge people to elaborate and actually discuss this, or say nothing at all.

[Adhin]

I really do like the idea they had for there durability system, I think a single craft skills kinda dumb. For me, at least, the only thing they'd have to do to put me fully in camp for it in game is add a permanent upgrade item we could buy that let us do maintenance at rest spots. There system actually reminded me a lot of Dark Souls, though in DS you could buy a kit to let you do it at any bonfire instead of requiring a blacksmith. Still costed 'souls'... which makes a hell of a lot more sense in DS then it does in PE, throwing gold at a campfire wouldn't make much sense.

 

But yeah a system that doesn't remove the use of the item, just make it more inferior when its at 0 dur is always my preferred method of durability. Once it kills the weapon or makes it completely unusable till its repaired is where I start shakin' my head.

 

That said I think the singular craft skill was a bit of a bum idea. I liked that a skill or something would effect durability degradation but having that tied to some kinda proficiency talent may make more sense. That and just a single skill for crafting is awkward, its not arts n crafts, cutting out paper isn't some universal skill that lets you also bang out a sword proper. So 'that' being out im definitely happy with, more so when you consider other skills will be used in conjuncture with crafts and stuff.

[Cultist]

I believe he is referring to the fact that PE combat is going to be a series of rock/paper/scissors. All party members will have two or more "weapon sets" that will allow each character to rapidly change their weapons.

You mean just like Baldur's Gate? Where every character had additional slot for alternative weapon and fighters had four of them?

[TrashMan]

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.

 

I'm curious as to what you think of hte system I proposed, as it doese exactly what you say.

 

But prolonged use does weaken the blade (micro-fractures) and having it re-forged is basicly how you fix it. Of course, you're not gonna be doing that every time you visit the town.

[TrashMan]

 

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?

 

 

No. I don't agree.

The specific implementation of a specific idea can be tedious. But that applies to any idea.

Like for example HP. What if enemies had huderds of thousands of HP and you had to plink away at them for hours? Tedious? Yes.

Would you go and argue that HP as a idea is completely broken and has to be removed?

Because that's the level of logical fallacy you are commiting here.

 

 

 

 

 

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).

 

What does rarity have to do with anything?

Attribute gains are rare. Are you saiyng we should remove them because they have no purpose?

 

Again, you make no sense, starting from a redicolous preconception about what gives any speciifc system value.

So yes, not-at-all is the domain of stupid poeple, incapable of understanding the clear difference.

 

Repairs (re-forging) at the blacksmith is something that you'd do rarely for weapons (but more frequently for armor). But basic mantainance is something you'd be doing after every fight. The system does see use and it simulates reality closer than anything I?ve seen you come up with...which is nothing b.t.w.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the amounts of fun to be had if each and every dungeon in the game you broke 2 weapons.

 

You like your strawmen, do you?

Again, projecting and pulluign numbers out of your ass.

Please, tell me where did you ghet that numbers? Who told you the speed of weapon degradation or repair frequency? No one, that's who.

You are are projecting your worst-case scenario and letting your shriveled imagination run wild with it.

 

 

 

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?

 

Yes. Because that's the same risk I would have in real life.

A small risk - a risk made even smaller with proper mantainance. But since I'm going to have a spare weapon with me anyway, I don't see a problem.

If the weapon breaks, I can still continue.

 

Again, where do you get "your weapon will break in each of them"? You again and again keep pulling redicolous numbers out of your ass, like they somehow prove your point. From this point on, I'm going to ignore all the BS numbers you are spewing forth.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

It would be a sound advice if it didnt' come from a blind man.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

What is the likelyhood of both weapons breaking?

A question like that is something that never occured to you?

 

But of course...since you hate the system, the only scenarios going trough your head are the worst ones, thus you end up further convincing yourself how right you are.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

False. The options you present are fake, like all of your examples and numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

You assume wrong.

In most cases, you should be abel to continue with the secondary. Why wouldn't you be abel to hit that Lich with a +3 weapon? And don't give me that infinite magical immunity crap. As a limited-duration spell it might work, but otherwise no.

Trolls? You got other options, like acid. Poison. Or just enough physical trauma.

 

But let's assume you do end up having to go back. So what?

It's part of hte experience - especially in Trial of Iron mode.

It's not that differenent from an encoutner that's too high-level for you and you have to regroup and try gain later. How is that different from reaching the troll fight without a fire weapon?

 

Either way, it's not a scenario that is likely to happen, or happen often.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

***

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

 

 

And yet you were only quoting me. Split posts or quote properly.

Don't blame me for your incompetence.

***

 

Actually you couldn't. Because at no point do you even consider alternate viewpoints.

I am adressing the problem with the initial system many anti-durabiltiy people proposed. You on the other hand..are adressing nothing. Suggesting nothnig.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm gonna read ThrashMan's post later (and reply on it), for now;

I won't bother going through every single quotation. But the jist here is that you assume that there won't be any fine tuning of the durability system. I'll concur on there being little reason to break your equipment on the same enemy numerous times in a single fight, I think it's safe to say none of us want that. But you can make it sensible, by carrying a more durable weapon, adjusting durability rates or adding a 'breaking threshold' so if Satan crits you, your weapon/shield is in tatters, just from the top of my head. And a specific ruleset for magical weapons if need be.

 

Also you should keep in mind you don't have to solo this game, so against trolls, naturally you could use 'fire magic', or a party members weapon, not a big deal. The quote about Knights and Archers was meant to point out the fact that actual real people have used backup weapons to compensate losing or breaking your main one. Not, having different ones for specific occasions (which, of course took place as well.) 

You have all these classes that do not rely on weapons and armor, which is something that people do not seem to be taking into account at all. How many characters' equipment you believe you'll have to keep in shape at all times? It's of course subjective, but it cannot be as big of a burden as people are making it out to be.

 

As a side note, what is the 'dual spec' you're referring to, because it almost sounds like something taken out of WoW, you having your tank spec and then swapping your spec at will to a different one, for instance? Or do you simply mean something along the lines of spreading your feats into multiple weapons as in DnD?

Pretty much everyone who, so far, had been pro-durability was talking about how it would add to the game by making dungeons more exciting by the risk of your gear breaking. The system wasn't like that (fortunately) and I was just questioning of those who thought like that REALLY wanted a risk of breakage every single dungeon they enter. Which seems to be no. Hence, the proposed way it would work good wasn't such a good example after all. It wouldn't work like how they imagined and try to explain it, it wouldn't add such things to a dungeon. From the sound of it, it would just add that you visited towns often and then click repair and then moved on. That's it. No depth, no emersive gameplay, nothing is really added to the game. And balancing it to work as they mentioned and hoped for, to have a major influence on the game, well, I was wondering if they would see in that would be bad for a 50H+ game.

So what are we left with. A system that works per dungeon, but as such makes your weapons break extremely fast, all the time throughout the entire game, or one that has barely any risk of breakage, but requires to visit blacksmiths from time to time just to click repair instead of craft.

Would either system add to the game? It doesn't seem to be so. And thus, it got scrapped.

 

As for "dual-spec" I meant having to actually swap around weapons means you can't just go putting points in one weapon/spell type like most modern RPG's allow, but should for best effect think about leveling more than 1. In games like DA:O nothings immune to fire, can just reduce damage, so why would you branch out instead of just maxxing out fire. And if something's resistance to fire, just use more of your overpowered fire?

Hopefully here, that would be a bad idea. And if you make an exclusive fire mage, he's useless fighting firey things. And if you make your fighter an excelent swordsmaster, you can get into big problems tackling the highly armored Dark Knight with your inexperience in using proper crushing weaponry.

EDIT:

(sure, it's a teambased game, but having party members being completely useless for a fight or even more fights can harm your progression and make combat way less efficient than if your party member is fully capable to add to the fight, albeit not as much as a specialsed teammember)

Edited July 9, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[TrashMan]

So what are we left with. A system that works per dungeon, but as such makes your weapons break extremely fast, all the time throughout the entire game, or one that has barely any risk of breakage, but requires to visit blacksmiths from time to time just to click repair instead of craft.

Would either system add to the game? It doesn't seem to be so. And thus, it got scrapped.

 

...

 

Again with the extreems.

Frankly, all these strawmen and Reductio Ad Absurdum are startign to irritate me.

 

First you complain that the feature would be too frequent. Then you complain that it will be not frequent enough.

It's like you only exist to invent problems.

No. Your assertion is wrong. Partially because you're still tied to that simple durabiltiy system in your head.

 

A feature doesn't have to be used 10 times per minute to be justified. Nor does it always have to be utilized the same way.

Repairing/reforgin an item at the blacksmith is not something you'd do regulary, no. But that doesn't mean durabiltiy wouldn't come into play.

After all, party memebers would mantain weapons between battles/durign resting.

 

The initial proposal was that weapons have fixed number of durabiltiy points nad each hit reduces durability. Craftign skill reduces the loss, but that's it.

 

The alternative is that:

- durabiltiy points are lost depending on materials involved in the clash and are a % chance, not a fixed event (more realistic, makes the rate of degradation less predictable and more predictable at the same time)

- crafting skill restores a number of points during resting (also depends on the item - you can mend a lether armor in the field compeltely, but not a plate armor)

- weapons can break but can also be reforged relatively easily.

- some of the items you find may already be damaged/worn

- there are other ways to affect durability (re-forging a weapon, durabiltiy enchantments, wheatstones, etc..)

- armors require more frequent repairs than weapons

 

 

 

 

 

sure, it's a teambased game, but having party members being completely useless for a fight or even more fights can harm your progression and make combat way less efficient than if your party member is fully capable to add to the fight, albeit not as much as a specialsed teammember

 

Then maybe we should avoid wounds and status effects.

Those make party memebers useless too and can also harm your progression.

Edited July 9, 2013 by TrashMan

[jethro]

A reason I can see to dislike degradation (as it was proposed) is that it doesn't lead to interesting tactical or strategic decisions. You can only save some money in exchange for xp if you give your party a level or two of the craft skill (making it a substitute of the haggle skill). You could save money with delaying repairs on weapons you want to sell shortly IF sale price was independent of degradation. If not, the only way to save money would be to fight with some weapons or armour at durability 0% (which would prolong fights thereby wasting money again on the weapons and armour not at 0%). It would be *very* difficult for this to have a noticable effect on your purse even if money is scarce. Not in any sensible relation to the effort you would have to put into it.

 

Now for all this to work comfortably you would need to have a special (and not usable for anything else) interface where you would see all degraded weapons on your party. Alternatively buttons in the sale-interface, but that would be an additional burden as you would have to flip through every party member for maintenance. Also 25%-degradation-icons for every single weapon and armour piece (alternatively it might be possible to use a single overlay-texture for all pieces). And some programming to make it all work.

 

Now is it worth it? For tactical or strategic decisions alone? I have my doubts. The other two reasons for it are to make the craft skill have a use for everyone and as a money sink. The first reason is ok in my opinion, the second not that compelling. Mathematically the durability effect could be substituted one to one with a lowering of the price items are bought by vendors.

 

I don't mind if degradation is in or not, but I have my doubts whether it could have achieved anything it set out to do, and my greatest doubts were about the necessity as a money sink which was (for me) the most important feature.