Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But those stone walls keep givin' me the stink eye!

 

Totally agree with the enchantment healing thing. Could also have some kinda magic rune they transfer the enchantment to prior to melting the sword down before making another sword out of it and move the enchantment back over. Ultimately I just want it to be explained to some minor degree. Even if its just some off comment from a smith when you ask about repairs in some exploratory chat stuff. "you do repairs?" - "Yeah, we also got some guy who can transfer enchanted arms n armor to runes, its more expensive but we can transfer it to the new stuff".

 

It's all in the details... the delicious details.

  • Like 1

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on that. The details make the world go 'round. Occasionally, they end up not mattering so much in a particular situation, but that's pretty rare, and not even considering them in the first place means you don't actually know whether or not they would've served the design better.

 

But, yeah... for what it's worth, I'm just very much in favor of constructively re-considering durability, if not the exact system they were going to go with. This is an in-development game, and a lot of us backed it because we want to contribute and nurture its development. While that doesn't mean "get whatever specifics we want just because we want them," I feel that I DO have some obligation to actually attempt to contribute to the development and design of the game, even if it's only helping cross some things off a list, or providing a written, readable log of a line of thinking the developers could obviously go through, themselves (I'm no exceptional genius who can think of things no one else can) but that's beneficial and time-saving to simply be able to read on here, etc.

 

It's not about whether or not they put durability back in. It's about the constructive evaluation of the design's potential, regardless. And no one's bad for not wanting to evaluate things further. I don't think that puts anyone in a negative light, or makes them actively unconstructive. But, arguing with people about the sheer evaluation of potential is quite unconstructive.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points of clarification:

 

* "Crafting" is one skill, but the crafting system uses multiple skills.  I.e., the crafting system does not rely on the existence of the Crafting skill.

* Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.  That said, we will likely avoid the IWD-style 5-level dungeons without semi-regular shortcuts back to the surface (N.B.: this does not mean Skyrim-style loops).

* Most items do take up space in personal inventories!  The party Stash is unlimited, but the Pack (made of personal inventories) is not.  Crafting items (and quest items) always go into (and come out of) the Stash.  We are doing this specifically to address common complaints about crafting items cluttering the inventory.  Since crafting is typically done at camps or other non-combat locations, allowing the items to come out of the Stash doesn't seem to create any problems.

 

As I posted on SA, Crafting (the skill) and its associated subsystems (like durability) were the elements I felt least confident about in our skill system.  I strongly believe that choices within an array should give the player reasonably balanced benefits.  Because certain fundamental skills (like Stealth) can clearly benefit from multiple party members taking them and can contribute to party effectiveness in combat, I believe that other skills should do the same in their own way -- enough to make all of them appealing choices on multiple party members.  This also has the benefit of making the uses of skills much higher-frequency than the individual uses that depend on designer content (e.g. unlocking doors or gaining a dialogue/quest option).

 

As an example, Medicine in its various Fallout forms contributes to the efficacy of stimpaks.  There are many other places were Medicine can be used in quests and dialogue, but it has high-frequency use with stimpaks (in or between combats).  It's a benefit that can apply to any character who has the skill, even if a character with a higher rating in a party may be "the guy" to perform the high-difficulty actions.

 

With all of the skills other than Crafting (specifically), those high-frequency benefits/uses were easy to come by.  Crafting presented some difficulties and, as I wrote previously, I was concerned about the lack of systemic drains in the economy.  Many people have mentioned a lot of potential uses for wealth.  Most of them are great ideas and ones that we plan to use, but the vast majority of them are not systemic, rather content-dependent or scripted instances (e.g. bribes).  However, it is clear from discussions here and elsewhere that the long-term balance of the economy is not a concern for most players who voiced their opinions -- and almost certainly not in the endgame.

 

Based on discussions on the forums and conversations I had with people on the team, we will be doing the following:

 

* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.

* Removing the Crafting skill (specifically).  The crafting system and its associated mechanics will remain, as-is.

 

Ultimately, solving skill imbalance and endgame wealth abundance problems is not worth what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay.  I can still solve the skill imbalance problems by removing the problem skill.  As for endgame wealth abundance, we will continue to create places for you to use wealth in the economy: unique items, the stronghold, optional quest/dialogue gates, etc.  Ultimately, if those options go unused, I'll have to trust that the majority of players won't be significantly troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.

 

Thanks for all of your feedback.

 

I'm generally okay with this, but I'm a little ambivalent about durability.

 

In general, durability as I've experienced it in games that have it is something that either sort of turns your weapons into annoying Tamagotchi who need constant TLC, bleeds all your resources and turns everything into a grind where you conserve your good weapons until you've wiped 3 times and resort to your good weapons (because otherwise they'd wear out so often they'd never get used), or most awful, you accidentally lose your favorite weapon for the rest of the game because it 'wore out.' Unless your weapon is Lilarcor or you're playing survival horror, all of these options have traditionally sucked.

 

With your proposed system, weapons need some maintenance (as they do in real life), but don't constantly create a persistent worrisome problem. So as such, it sounded like the best durability system I've heard of for this type of game.

 

However, when I think about it, maintaining weapons seems like a bit of a drag no matter how it's handled unless there's some sort of role-playing perk to it. Could the repair of your equipment perhaps subtly alter people's impressions of your character? Could really excellently up-kept weapons have minor bonuses? Could your skill with a weapon increase as you oil it and sharpen it more times? Could you more effectively use a weapon's magic as you've used it for a longer period of time and gain familiarity with it? Could a rusted rune become legible over time as you clean your ancient blade repeatedly? Could its magic potential be tapped more deeply as you both use it longer and deepen a bond of care? I feel like there are intriguing untapped possibilities and potential storytelling elements to be investigated with weapon maintenance. But I feel that making them work would be a fine balancing act -- you want to establish a connection with interaction and visual feedback, but you also don't want to force it into the experience in a nagging and obtrusive way.

 

Hence I feel like there might have been potential, but I still feel ambivalent. In any case I'm glad you read our comments and occasionally think some of us just might have a point despite only seeing the shadows on the wall, so to speak.

Edited by khango
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention:

" Other than reaching the edge of a map to access the world map, there is no fast-travel in PE.  That said, we will likely avoid the IWD-style 5-level dungeons without semi-regular shortcuts back to the surface (N.B.: this does not mean Skyrim-style loops)."

 

Soooo, does that mean pack animals and horses are in the mix? Please? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

As strange as this is of a connection as this is, and how oh-so-little this has to do with durability, what khango is saying with the RP or growing potential of weapons reminds me of what Bungie is doing with Destiny. All the weapons have there own sorta perk tree, on a individual basis. I'm sure common weapons all share a basic common thing, but the unique weapons all have a unique tree with interesting changes that can occure depending how much you invest directly into it and I personally think that's a freakin' awesome idea that more RPG's could take advantage of.

 

It's also something thats often toyed with to some extend in DnD books with finding some magical sword of fire lets say and you have trouble just using it because it just rejects you as its owner initially. Coming to grips with that and winning the sword over, extended using making it stronger as its bond grows with you. It's the kind of thing that could make more unique weapons more interesting and allow for a level of progression with magical weapons letting you keep an initially weaker one earlier on that grows to later game.

 

Totally in favor of that kinda thing 100%.

  • Like 2

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

On durability all non-magical crafted items should have durability or not at all. Some magical items could have durability. Epic magic items should not have a durability but should have a hidden mechanic that would allow it to be damaged or broken (for storyline reasons).

 

Crafting should be broken down into relevant skill systems (i.e. weapon-smithing, armor-smithing, and so on). There should be a skill that corresponds to whatever the character is crafting. These skills should determine resource use, time of creation, durability, quality modifiers and all these same factors in repairing items. The level of each skill should also have a hidden lore bonus to identify items the character is proficient in crafting.

 

The map and travelling could be way more interesting. For example, Lore should determine what maps can be fast travelled to. If you have a low Lore then you don't know much about the area. Unless, of course, your character is from a specific area then they would see more maps (higher geographical knowledge) to fast travel to than someone not from the area (different race) with the same Lore score. You should be able to fast travel anywhere that is on a map regardless of whether you have been there or not. However, if you haven't been somewhere you are fast travelling to, the encounter chance should be increased proportionate to how far away from an area you have already explored. Finally, the more you explore an area the easier it is to fast travel in that area without an encounter unless the story dictates otherwise.

 

Fast travelling in dungeons is convenient but also makes that dungeon less dangerous. I think fast travel dungeon mechanics should be a crafting challenge and/or a spell-casting challenge. For example you could craft a transport rune or you could perform a transport ritual and perhaps both could be combined to expedite the travel.

 

I think these ideas are ideal, but, I understand that they are probably too mechanic-heavy to implement. Whether you agree or disagree I would like to see these features in my game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cleary unhappy with the mind's change of the team. If durability is a pain in a game focused on action (Hn'S like Diablo), it could be an interesting parameter in a cRPG, who could influence our gaiming ways.

 

Same thing about specific crafting skills, who can totaly change the player's team.

 

With this mind's change, It seems that the game became combat focalised, and I hope I'm wrong, I don't want to Obsidian make a Dragon Age 2 copy, but a Baldur's Gate/ Planescape Torment/ Icewind Dale mix, like they wanted to.

 

And yet, none of those infinity engine games had item durability or crafting beyond scripted events...

 

Just saying.

 

I'll not mourn the loss of item durability or that I probably would've ended up putting limited skill points into crafting on EVERY character just to avoid the gold sink and your-item-needs-repairing time sink it seems it would have become. Instead of something more interesting or at least more suited to their character or even just something else.

 

I think I get what you're saying in that the mechanic could have changed the way we make our characters and our teams. I just don't necessarily see it as a good change. I am willing to admit that it might have been an interesting mechanic, and the way I envision what was described is not what Josh & Tim et al had originally intended. But they asked for feedback, so honest feedback was given, and this is the decision they've reached (at least partly) as a result and now we'll never know.

 

What I am happy with is that the team at Obsidian had an idea (that from the sounds of it they weren't 100% sure of) and they asked us what we thought, and they took our response on board in their discussions, and that the whole process can happen BEFORE it's too late to change.

 

These guys have made a lot of really good games. I'm pretty certain they know what they're doing and any fan feedback on how to make the game is tempered by the fact they actually make them for a living, have done for a while now, and have to consider in far more detail "what actually makes a game fun for as many people as possible" than many people who just play them would.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm cleary unhappy with the mind's change of the team. If durability is a pain in a game focused on action (Hn'S like Diablo), it could be an interesting parameter in a cRPG, who could influence our gaiming ways.

 

Same thing about specific crafting skills, who can totaly change the player's team.

 

With this mind's change, It seems that the game became combat focalised, and I hope I'm wrong, I don't want to Obsidian make a Dragon Age 2 copy, but a Baldur's Gate/ Planescape Torment/ Icewind Dale mix, like they wanted to.

 

And yet, none of those infinity engine games had item durability or crafting beyond scripted events...

 

Just saying.

 

I'll not mourn the loss of item durability or that I probably would've ended up putting limited skill points into crafting on EVERY character just to avoid the gold sink and your-item-needs-repairing time sink it seems it would have become. Instead of something more interesting or at least more suited to their character or even just something else.

 

I think I get what you're saying in that the mechanic could have changed the way we make our characters and our teams. I just don't necessarily see it as a good change. I am willing to admit that it might have been an interesting mechanic, and the way I envision what was described is not what Josh & Tim et al had originally intended. But they asked for feedback, so honest feedback was given, and this is the decision they've reached (at least partly) as a result and now we'll never know.

 

What I am happy with is that the team at Obsidian had an idea (that from the sounds of it they weren't 100% sure of) and they asked us what we thought, and they took our response on board in their discussions, and that the whole process can happen BEFORE it's too late to change.

 

These guys have made a lot of really good games. I'm pretty certain they know what they're doing and any fan feedback on how to make the game is tempered by the fact they actually make them for a living, have done for a while now, and have to consider in far more detail "what actually makes a game fun for as many people as possible" than many people who just play them would.

 

 

I feel like it came across as less of a good change because of how it was framed in the update.

 

If they'd said 'shiny or dirty weapons and armor can give you reaction bonuses or penalties in counters, and polishing and sharpening your weapons before a fight can bring out an extra bit of bite, and the environment (swamp, arid, etc.) and really powerful creatures can effect their condition change, and going too long without the regular bonus-giving maintenance can give you a bit of a penalty until you see smith' I think people would have reacted more positively. That sounds like it fits into a game world, and produces positive and interesting effects - should you let your equipment wear down a little before meeting with some bandits? Should you polish it before meeting a noble? Did you forget to oil your weapons and let them rust in desert? Did some sort of tremendously strong creature with stone skin dull your blade? These things sound fun and like part of a game.

 

However, when framed as 'weapons have toughness points and kind of linger in an intermediate zone while they slowly lose power and cost you money,' if I may make a negative sounding paraphrase, just won't get a positive reacting because it sounds negative. Especially when it seems coupled with having to spec a special skill, when weapon maintenance is something that pretty much anyone can learn and do a decent job of without tons of effort. Maybe the 15 or 30 minutes you spend with some oil, rags, steel wool, and whetstone around the campfire every night is 15 to 30 minutes you can't peruse ancient tomes, but it's way less trouble than learning to read, which ostensibly doesn't take a skill slot.  Swords aren't exactly tanks that require multi-person mechanic crews or something.

 

Like most of life, it all seems to be marketing. Which is really really depressing.

 

 

As a side note, games seem to focus around weapon maintenance as something involving smiths and forges. However, as someone with experience in guns, bows, and swords, I have to say it's really not the usual case to have to do something so extreme or time intensive. Most of maintenance is things like keeping your arrows neatly fletched, your bowstring waxed, your sword rust free, your gun well lubricated and free from dirt. Sure, your sword gets chips and dings after a lot of use, but usually they're shallow and you grind or polish them out. Maybe sometimes you have to replace a bowstring or put a new grip on a sword (a couple of pins at worst if it's not a decoration). You really have to go at things for years really hard to need to take things in to a smith or repair person in most cases. As such, I think games have some sort of weird tendency to overemphasize maintenance into something more burdensome and specialized than it really is.

Edited by khango
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I was neutral regarding crafting and its effect on durability, it didn't sound too bad, but it is sad to see durability completely gone in general.

 

Regarding wealth and economy, I can't understand why is it so hard to not shower the players with money.

In a low magic world, unique expensive items are rare anyway. In a high magic world, shops shouldn't be impressed when you sell them a +1 sword and pay you a lot for it.

What games usually break is:

  • Insanely high rewards.
  • Rewards that scale up to your level (yes this poor merchant can now give you more gold than he makes in a lifetime)
  • High magic world that pays you endless money for your items.
  • Broken mechanics like being able to steal back all the money you paid way too easily (just one example for a broken mechanic).
  • Finding all the items you need along they way and not needing to buy anything (namely healing material like potions).

I'd like to play a game where money choices are important.

  • Like 2

✔ Certified Bat Food

Link to post
Share on other sites

Combining those with with the two points at the top, it's hard for me to figure out where the gold is going to go.  There is also the possibility that players don't actually want a long-term gold economy in a SP game, that gold in the mid- and late-game is ultimately something to accumulate and that most/all forms of gear upgrading simply happens through quests and exploration.  That's not an invalid way to go, but I'd like to hear thoughts on it if you have the time.

 

I must admit I'm not even halfway through reading this thread since my time is very limited (but not too limited to write this monster of a post, it seems), so it's quite possible someone has suggested this already, but how about limiting your incentive to sell your unusable loot or making the loot more of a story item than just a source of money? Below some completely random examples.
 
--
 
For example you could see these little scraps of blue silk strewn around the whole world, and sometimes turquoise, and very occasionally green. When you collect them they all go to this one pile that merely keeps growing instead of taking your inventory space, and when you ask about it most people won't care/have a clue but some traveller/retired adventurer/dusty old book/grateful priest eventually lets you know that that material is some special spider silk, made in ancient times, tears easily but never decomposes, used to be quite a fad at some point in the distant history. And hints that it still might be, somewhere.
 
You could usually come across those scraps, say, at the same rate than you come across rings in BG2 (not that I remember what it was), but it varies by the area, somewhat. And then you find a place where the stuff is just everywhere. When usually you might find a few coins in almost every corpse and a scrap of silk in every fifteenth one, now it would be the other way around -- gold is really rare, and silk in abundance (especially in the stomachs/pockets of larger monsters that stalk the roads). And when you get to the town/village/whatever you notice that just about everyone is wearing those scraps in their person -- stitched to their clothing, made into scarfs, hair ornaments, anything. And there you learn that the silk is supposed to bring you luck, and you should always wear it on you.
 
Well, by then you have found enough remains to know this doesn't sound very likely, and have probably also carried the stuff around for a good while without noticeable boost in your luck, so you feel a bit cheated that you have bothered to carry it around at all even if it doesn't really weight anything. But then you notice the old adventurer at the tavern who *doesn't* wear silk, and go ask her about it, and she asks in return don't you know how much they pay for that stuff in area X? So you keep collecting the stuff and go there, noticing that suddenly the silk is really, really scarce in the nearby areas, and then find out the gal was exaggerating a bit -- you won't get even one coin per scrap -- but you also notice there's a guy whose clothes have a very distinct and familiar shade, just like he had had it all made from the silk. And when you talk to him you learn that you can have the stuff crafted into clothing in
some weaver shop, or if you have talent in handcrafts you could get patters from this guy in this private club, and by the way they also buy those crafted clothes there.
 
Then it turns out that whether you craft them yourself or have them crafted by someone else the clothes don't really get that good price (except the rare green ones, possibly) -- but if you provide enough of them you might get an invitation to the exclusive club. Can't get inside if you aren't dressed properly, of course, or at least you'll get a very grudging reception, but if you do dress up you'll be really quite unprotected in the meanwhile, so you might wish to invest in some stealthy means of defending yourself and possibly leave a couple of your less sophisticated group members outside both to serve as a guard and to keep them from insulting the members. Might be that you should veto even yourself from going and send someone else in your stead, if you have someone else who fits the profile better and is worth your trust. And depending on how well you or your representative get along with the various members and whether you'll fill their possible side quests in an acceptable manner you could end up with various kinds of benefits -- an unique item in some fabulous colour, perhaps, or goodwill of the town guards who will look the other way as long as you aren't raiding the houses of the members (easily recognizable through some symbol, or contents of the place), or you could find a buyer for this completely useless set of turquoise armour you've had lying around in your stronghold because it just has to be a quest item, and so on.
 
In fact you might be even collecting those weird and useless sets of armour (parts of which you might need to buy or craft/have crafted to get the sets complete, and sometimes replacing an original but badly damaged piece might be beneficial), and find someone who would be interested in displaying selected pieces of your collection in some other elitist society's function -- you might not get that much money out of that either, but your reputation would spread and you would get more deals like that, with another set of benefits as a carrot in the end. And perhaps one of the armour enthusiasts would try to swindle you, and you would have to choose how to react to that with different kinds of consequences. Then perhaps another weaselly-looking person tries to make a deal with you afterwards, and you suspect the results will be the same but you go for it anyway, and get something special extra for your troubles since he's having such a hard time getting anyone to lend their collection to his functions.
 
You might even hold some armour fair of your own in your stronghold, with all your displayed armours guarded and securely booby-trapped in various ways in case of thieves. You might even present older sets of your own armour, along with stories of your accomplishments while wearing them. Not to mention your ring collection where every item also has their own story, even if you had to make up most of it yourself since the corpses you found the rings from weren't too forthcoming with information, but no matter, everyone loves a good story, right? As long as you don't embellish too much and get called on it, that is. And if you are of dark inclinations yourself, you might have yet another, secret collection that has that elven-hide armour and a necklace of small finger bones and other dubious items, and gain nice pieces of information/influence/contacts with the similarly inclined collectors.
Of course if you go and show it to the wrong kind of person you might not like the consequences...
 
And if you don't want to go through all that trouble you can just sell the silk and the useless bits of armour and the cheap rings at very bad price, and make do without the extra items and other helpful things you can earn from going through the guests -- but your main merchant will grow very fond of you, and give you some special guests of his own as a reward, and perhaps you'll find yourself very tight with the merchants of that area in general. And if you want to have it all, you'll really have to run yourself ragged trying to find enough silk and stuff for everyone, and it might not be completely possible in any case since the merchants don't get
along well with the secret society of the fancy clothes (as they steal customers, even if they also buy most of the silk off from the merchants), but you can always try, eh?
 
--
 
Personally I don't really mind being the richest person ever alive at the end of the game, either.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm having visions of an in-game Bard (chanter?) starting up "kickstarter" projects to fund his traditional harp based compositions instead of all this modern lute based stuff.

  • Like 2

“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ultimately 'needing' to take it to a blacksmith is the extremely minor immersion breaker for me. You 'can' repair a chipped blade, you can re-heat and put a broken blade back together. These are possible things but the weapon in question is no longer suitable for battle in either situation. A simple quick-fix like that simply wont make the blade effective again and it'll just be that much more likely to break on you. More so with the types of forging available back in those days.

 

Like I've said before, for believability sake, the weapon breaking and you trading in the broken steel to buy a new one makes far more sense. Course, that's coming from a mind of are newer age, the idea of discarding the broken thing for a new thing makes more sense to me. In a lot of places in old times the weapons where a tad more treasured then that and would often get berried with people, broken or otherwise (and often would be broken if it wasn't already to be berried with).

 

I don't care either way, there original system would need some tweaking on %, your idea for an always minor repair on resting to a limit would be kind of nice to help extend equipments life. But none of it really makes any sense and its just a game-mechanic to be a game-mechanic in the end. So.. I dun cur one way or another.

 

I don't know what you are talking about there.

Proper equipment mantainance DOES prolong it's life. Re-heating and re-forging is a valid method of repair. You could make an argumetn that if you re-forge it, it's not the same blade anymore...but that's how blades were repaired.

 

 

 

I kind of like the idea of a weapon being able to break, but when you start getting into fantasy metals that don't lose there edge by normal means and adamantite can't break on anything other then something much harder then it (which in fantasy settings is practically impossible to find unless its rock-based adamantite pulled out of a gods ass) for the vast majority of situations it would... only really effect the starter base items.

 

Doesn't that assume PE has an admanite proxy?

Who said there has to be some indestructable material at all?

 

And what if that blade mets the blade of total annihilation? Immovable Object vs. Unstoppable Force?

Edited by TrashMan
  • Like 1

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the argument im making, since no one considers it the same blade and yes proper maintenance will prolong a blades life 100%. It's just bizar to me people think you can just repair a blade when 'repairing' it in the manner a lot of people think literally is just recycling it into another blade. Like you said, you could make the argument its a different blade (implying it could also be the same sword) but there is absolutely 'nothing' else that anyone makes that argument for. You melt cans down to make more cans, no one assumes they're the same can.

 

None of that matters and the stuff your asking seems to be ignoring all the other crap I've said about I'm happy with a durability and repair system in, I just want **** explained in some small manner so it doesn't come across as wildly arbitrary like so many other things. They've already done that, to some extent, with the inventory and I'm freakin' overjoyed with the way there handling that.

 

That's all I want, if you put a system like that in, put a little thought into explaining it, and they've been really good at that so far. As far as constantly arguing you don't actually 'repair' broken blades you recycle them into a completely different blade was just to toss out information a lot of folks seem to not of been considering (or even realize that's how you 'repair' a weapon or what reforging actually is).

 

Lemmy reiterate this again - I'm for your idea of a durability system and I would enjoy it. I'm not arguing against a durability system, or for one for that matter. Ultimately I'm happy with it either way though if it ends up actually getting put in, a little explanation (in game, preferably from a black smith them selves) as to the whys and hows, in a simple matter, would just be more enjoyable to me in general.

 

Realize I'm rambling again but 1 more off point as to why I've brought this up. In system where you have durability and 0 means its broke and you have to toss it? Only smiths can fix it for some reason but they can't fix it once its broke. It can be chipped, cracked, bent (minor bends can be fixed, just wont be as good as it was before durability wise) but once its 'broke' its screwed entirely. I just find it kinda silly, cause the only things you'd 'actually' have to take to a smith to fix usually involve it being recycled and if its broke... yeah.

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I feel like it came across as less of a good change because of how it was framed in the update.

 

If they'd said 'shiny or dirty weapons and armor can give you reaction bonuses or penalties in counters, and polishing and sharpening your weapons before a fight can bring out an extra bit of bite, and the

 

Well, in that case I wouldn't have been indifferent but against it. What you seem to propose is buffing in sheeps clothing (at least if in the frequency you are implying). And I don't like buffs without a tactical component (I don't consider the decision "if hard fight ahead then buff else no buff" an interesting tactical decision)

 

Yes, how you sell something is very important (we all are subjective animals, objectivity is a myth). The question is, would the relabeling just sell it to us now or really work through 40 hours of play?

Link to post
Share on other sites

* Removing durability as a mechanic on items.

NOOOOOOO!!!

 

Frankly, those peope who perceive maintenance as uninteresting or unenjoyable gameplay are crazy people.  It's another opportunity to make decisions about how to deploy your available resources.  In-character decision-making is basically what roleplaying is.  It's like those people who don't enjoy inventory management.  What is up with those people?

 

I, for one, will absolutely be troubled by an excess of wealth in the late game.

  • Like 2

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what players perceive as uninteresting and unenjoyable gameplay.

 

As one of the people who criticized the item durability system as described in the last update, I'm sort of sorry if we came across as pissing all over your idea.

 

In fact, I don't dislike item-degradation on principle - but I'd much rather see it in the game as a fully-worked-out aspect of the crafting system rather than just as "periodically click here for your money-sink"

 

Fallout New Vegas had a repair system that I really liked - combining parts from broken-down items to refurbish them felt fun, even if it wasn't all that deep a process. I'd be happy to see something in P:E that actually felt like part of the game's world, rather than an arbitrary way of controlling the money supply.

DID YOU KNOW: *Missing String*

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a non-chioce Sylvius. A yes/no is technically a choice, do it or don't do it, experience content or don't, play the game or don't... its a choice but its a horribly ****ty boring choice thats as goddamn basic as it gets. repairing equipment ISN'T some crazy resource management that adds heavy choices into the game. It's eating every day. Sure you can decide 'not' to eat every day if you want, but your going to have to at some point if you plan to keep doing... stuff. It's not really much of a choice.

 

If repairing was some kind of extremely rare instance that had massive impact on 'resources' that was required for other stuff completely unrelated and you had to make a choice between some other stuff 'or' use it to 'repair your equipment' then yeah, it would be an interesting choice. But that would have to be a story beat which should result in some kind of minor debuff if you choose not to repair stuff prior to whatever and doing so removes other options. That would be an interesting choice thing but that has 0 to do with a maintenance system.

 

It's a money sink, one that can be enjoyable and add to the feeling of the game, but it is by no means some kind of resource choice. It is, by its very nature 'not' a resource choice, it exist to help keep a resource becoming to abundant.

 

-edit-

@RedSocialKnight: Yeah NV had a 'great' repair system. Was a good evolution from FO3's a bit more restrictive one. Was a good example of general maintenance, and needing another like item to strip for parts.

Edited by Adhin
  • Like 1

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought of durability as something that just adds immersion to the game in the form of a minor mechanic that for the most part adds a touch of realism to the game, not as a major gameplay mechanic. Too bad its not gonna make it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, those people who perceive maintenance as uninteresting or unenjoyable gameplay are crazy people.  It's another opportunity to make decisions about how to deploy your available resources.

 

I would have liked a meaningful resource management system too. But do you really think that what the update described was a resource management system?

 

An uncharacteristically optimistic assessment, coming from you!

Edited by RedSocialKnight

DID YOU KNOW: *Missing String*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am replying to Josh's post number 341 to this thread. Posted 05 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

 

 

I have not had the opportunity to read the majority of this thread nor did I have the chance to participate in the discussion but I did want to mention that I concur with the analysis and decisions that Josh has expressed in his post.

 

"Endgame" Wealth:  Personally I do not believe wealth is a large problem.  In fact, I consider it 'normal' and 'expected', that it will grow over time, so attempting to artificially limit wealth would not be appreciated by me.  Can you imagine this occuring in the "real' world?  Hey! You just reached 80 so now you must liquidate your assets, pay higher taxes and live in a grass hut! Ugh!  ("Endgame" being the "real" world equivalent of "old age")  You should be wealthy in "old age" ("endgame") after a lifetime ("real" or "virtual") of hard work and saving.

 

Durability:  I have never, ever liked either the concept of durability or its implementation in any world I have ventured in, so removing it as a world mechanic is most appreciated!

 

Crafting:  I love to craft and do it extensively when able to (LOTRO and Skyrim come to mind, but I am also gettign into it in AoC and Neverwinter).  Any removal or limiting of the ability to craft would be very disappointing.  But, if I read this corectly, it sounds like crafting remains, and the only change is that there is now no special skill requried in order to craft; perhaps merely ingredients and tools?  If so, this is certainly acceptable.

 

Keep up the good work!  Cant wait to see the finished world!

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a non-chioce Sylvius. A yes/no is technically a choice, do it or don't do it, experience content or don't, play the game or don't... its a choice but its a horribly ****ty boring choice thats as goddamn basic as it gets. repairing equipment ISN'T some crazy resource management that adds heavy choices into the game. It's eating every day. Sure you can decide 'not' to eat every day if you want, but your going to have to at some point if you plan to keep doing... stuff. It's not really much of a choice.

It's not whether you eat, but what you eat - or in times of scarcity, who gets to eat - that makes the choice interesting.

 

If the objective of the system was to consume resources to prevent excessive late-game wealth, then presumably at some point a choice would have to be made whether to maintain an item or whether to spend the money in other ways. Moreover, a character who is especially fastidious would always maintain his items, and thus deprive himself of resources, perhaps unnecessarily.

 

Is this an optimistic forecast? Yes, it is. But item degredation is a mechanic with good roleplaying potential (just like inventory management), and I hate to see those simply discarded because someone decides they're not "fun" enough.

  • Like 1

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's the argument im making, since no one considers it the same blade and yes proper maintenance will prolong a blades life 100%. It's just bizar to me people think you can just repair a blade when 'repairing' it in the manner a lot of people think literally is just recycling it into another blade. Like you said, you could make the argument its a different blade (implying it could also be the same sword) but there is absolutely 'nothing' else that anyone makes that argument for. You melt cans down to make more cans, no one assumes they're the same can.

 

Yeah, but no one's suggesting you just toss the sword into a big vat of molten swords, then have the blacksmith make another one out of that sword soup. You're quite literally taking a sword, doing a bunch of stuff to it, then reshaping it into a sword. You took a sword, and ended up with a sword. It's not going anywhere. There's no technicality, or question about whether or not that's the same sword.

 

Let me pose this scenario:

 

If you were a Wizard, and you got your arms chopped off. Then, a Cleric called upon the power of his holy deity and regenerated your arms, are those still your arms? Are they now non-magical arms? Would you cease being a Wizard?

 

Obviously there's no realistic answer to that, since it's fiction. But, one must assume that an enchanted item bears the enchantment as somehow (it doesn't really matter how) bonded to the object itself. Which, an object is just matter with certain properties (shape, size, density, color, structure, etc.). So, it must be assumed that, so long as that matter is together, the enchantment holds. And there's gotta be a decent bit of leeway there, or scraping a few metal shavings off your blade in combat would render the enchantment null and void. "Oh no! The object isn't whole anymore! It's only 99.9999% whole now! Enchantment: DEACTIVATED!"

 

You see what I mean? And the silly Wizard example wasn't even using the original material (although regenerating pretty much uses our own DNA and bodily materials to make new cells... we just typically don't regenerate entire arms on our own.) Reforging a blade is literally re-using the exact same object, and returning it to its tip-top shape.

 

I'm not trying to make it a big deal. I just wanted to point out why we're thinking of it as not a problem, and as the same blade. I mean, if you dull the crap out of a Sword of Flames that does +5 burning damage and lights things on fire, to the point that it doesn't even physically have an edge or cut anymore, then it would suck as a sword, but why would that affect its 5 burning damage? It would basically be a magical, metal torch at that point. If it used to do 4-7 damage +5 fire damage, then now it would be something like 1-2 damage +5 fire damage. If you snapped the sword in half, then maybe the enchantment can't work properly, because you've severed the "flow" of the enchantment throughout that object. Maybe it's still there, in the material (since it obviously persists in the material even when it's not being used). But, maybe the material has to be joined. Almost like electrical wiring. *shrug*

 

Who knows, really. But, if there's ever been any kind of explanation as to why you can only enchant a sword as a whole, complete sword, and why the material doesn't actually retain any enchantment once you make that object too different from what it was (in shape, structure, etc.), then I've never heard it. If that were the case, then why can a sword AND a maul have the same enchantment on them? If you were to melt the Maul down and shape it into a sword blade, would it not just think it was now a sword? Why does the magic care what shape the object is?

 

For that matter, one would think you could even find/create magical ores and woods and such, and fashion things out of them.

 

Also, on a slightly related note, I think it would be cool if purely-magical (like... active-spell-effect magical) items actually suffered a different kind of durability. Maybe they suffer strain from frequency of use, as only so much magical energy can be focused/channeled through them in a given amount of time? So, maybe that wand of Magic Missile works infinitely, but the missile gets weaker if you use it back-to-back-to-back, until it simply can't even produce a missile anymore. But, if you give it some time, it will "recover," and function again. *shrug*

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...