Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Item Durability

crafting durability poll

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

Poll: Item Durability (182 member(s) have cast votes)

What is your opinion on Item Durability in Project Eternity?

  1. Item Durability belongs in P:E and I like the mechanics from Update 58 (67 votes [36.81%])

    Percentage of vote: 36.81%

  2. Item Durability belongs in P:E but I would like different mechanics (post why) (30 votes [16.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.48%

  3. Item Durability does not belong in P:E (85 votes [46.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.70%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#161
Micamo

Micamo

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 312 posts

we won't know until we see the game but for all we knew the penalty would not have warranted immediate evac from dungeon, just a sign that your character was getting tired so to speak, and only when penalties from other sources that added altogether would you consider time to leave), to me it conjured up images of adventurers getting slowly worn down, epically struggling on as their equipment no longer gleamed shiny clean.


I have a bit of a problem with this. Having my items break and my stats take a hit doesn't make me feel worn down and desperate, it's just the DM telling me "You are very tired right now."

#162
FlintlockJazz

FlintlockJazz

    White Rabbit of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1957 posts
  • Location:Pocket Domain in the Outer Astral Plane
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

we won't know until we see the game but for all we knew the penalty would not have warranted immediate evac from dungeon, just a sign that your character was getting tired so to speak, and only when penalties from other sources that added altogether would you consider time to leave), to me it conjured up images of adventurers getting slowly worn down, epically struggling on as their equipment no longer gleamed shiny clean.


I have a bit of a problem with this. Having my items break and my stats take a hit doesn't make me feel worn down and desperate, it's just the DM telling me "You are very tired right now."

 

Again, they never said that the items broke, on the contrary they said that they became damaged, that was all.  As for railroading as mentioned in your link, it's no more railroading than your DM saying "You feel dead," when your hit points run out.



#163
TrashMan

TrashMan

    Holy Avenger of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1523 posts
  • Location:Nabeshins afro
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

That just proves you are either exceptionally close-minded or exceptionally prejudiced.

Nothing more.
 

You dont KNOW. You THINK you know. And that very mentality only digs you deeper.

Meaning, you have created your own prison.

"You must try everything" is a flawed philosophy. I would not try drugs because i know they will screw me. Or go to ghetto to know that being robbed and beaten is actually makes me feel bad. So yes, I think that I know. My experience is based on interaction with various durability systems in various games. SO rather than go full Dragon Age 2 and trying things a lot of people hate, Obsidian decided to stick with traditional Infinity approach.

 

 

I never said "you must try everything"

See how you are jumping to conclusions and pre-judging?

 

Ya know, there is a difference between something being proven objectively bad, and something being a subjective, psyhological issue. I told you before - you forged your own cage, and only you can break it. But you have to want to do it. And you don't.
 



#164
Cultist

Cultist

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 453 posts

rala.jpg


  • Tagaziel likes this

#165
Bitula

Bitula

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 35 posts

Voted the second option. Because constraining durability to weapons, chest armour and shields is too simplistic and unrealistic. I would have liked to extend it to much more equipment and items so it would be some significant part of P.E. world. However if it is too much effort, probably better to drop it and concentrate on other features.



#166
Funke

Funke

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 1 posts
  • Steam:Funke_
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

The general idea that damaged weapons are less accurate, damaged armor slows you down etc (Update #58) are good. on/off rule for this is however not natural to my opinion. I.e. loss of accuracy/speed as a function of durability is more realistic, thereby people who have the energy to sharpen their sword after every strike get some bonus from it. But the function should not be linear, maybe logistic or similar. Then, for example item with 70% durability still has e.g. 95% effectiveness. So you don't have to maintain your equipment all the time. 

 

And I would like the chance that your sword really breaks. Not sure what types of material you have, but e.g. glass sword or wooden bow could totally shatter, but iron sword could just break/bend and then you could collect the scrap metal and forge a new one with some more resources. And when some items break, e.g. flail, there could be a chance that you hurt yourself when it breaks.  

 

Some high quality or magical items could of course be indestructible, otherwise people will lose too much hair.

 

Repairing yourself or in the shop is good, of course you will have to find the balance between cost of shop-repair and time to use for self-repair.



#167
jethro

jethro

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 257 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

All the talk got me thinking what weapon degradation system I would like. So ...

 

I would have liked a system where durability randomly goes down and there is *no* way at all to repair it. Making weapons and armour essentially long lasting consumables. Why?

 

1) It would lead to more weapons get used. Instead of finding a good weapon and doing 1/3 of the adventure with it, selling all the other equally good weapons, you would actually use 2 or 3 of them, adapting to their strenghts and weaknesses. Game Designers could place more loot stuff into the world because more of it would be used.

 

2) Excellent money sink

 

3) No management hussle (like repairing whenever in town) except that you might like to always have a spare with you.

 

4) Different strategies possible: Either always use the best weapon and look for replacements or use weaker weapon on weaker enemies and prolong like of best weapon

 

5) You could add an effect that when a weapon breaks it often does additional damage due to the splinters hitting the defender. This would diminish the danger to lose a fight just because of a breaking weapon and also create the possibility of an interesting tactic: Collect nearly broken weapons to use them in a difficult fight. 

 

Disadvantages:

1) Players with unhealthy weapon fixations ;-) won't like it

2) May lead to frustration with players who just can't see their best weapon slowly moving to obsolence. Won't be popular with players who don't like degradation at all. Probably would have to be turned off for easy or even normal play so that the game retains mass appeal.


  • Jarmo and motorizer like this

#168
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

*Ponders*... I think "money sink" should always be a secondary objective of any mechanic. Just for what that's worth.

 

And three things:

 

1) Durability shouldn't ALWAYS decrease sheerly with weapon/armor use. I think it would tie into the weapons-vs-armor-types system very well. Use your sword against some plate armor... degrade your sword blade. Use a maul against plate armor... probably doesn't degrade your maul. And vice versa. If an enemy with a rapier is attacking your plate-wearing Fighter, then there's almost no way his armor's going to degrade. This actually gives you tactical means of affecting item degradation.

 

2) There needs to be some actual positive incentive range for durability. Maybe everything above 85% actually provides new bonuses/effects (like bleed damage/chance, cripple/impale chance, etc.)? Maybe weapons you buy in shops start at varying durabilities? But, when the best-case scenario for item repair is "you go to spend money to stop your stuff from sucking," there's not a whole lot the mechanic is providing to the player. Even with HP, having it be high means you can take a greater hit without dying. But there's no significant durability damage variance, so you don't even have that with durability. Add to that the fact that HP doesn't always cost money to regain. Just for comparison.

 

3) Unless you're just constantly thwacking rock walls with your blades, and diving upon jagged boulders in your plate armor (see point # 1), durability should take a while to significantly degrade. Complete item breakage, if it is included, should be QUITE rare. In fact, instead of any kind of effect simply having a chance to break an item, I'd rather see a very tiny chance for something to deal 10-times normal durability damage (like a durability critical hit). Kind of like what they did with missing. There's still a dynamic as to how well you can hit in combat now, but there's much more nuance. You're rarely going to have a 30% chance to completely miss someone, or score a critical hit. Same idea with durability, only, the numbers would be even MORE different, because the expected, abstracted frequency of you just getting your armor torn in half or your sword blade cracked in two is even lesser than the frequency with which you expect to land a critical or suffer a miss in combat.

 

And, because it was mentioned some, I got to thinking that it might be interesting for magical items to have some sort of durability. I don't think permanent, passive enchantments should lose anything (unless maybe the item breaks, but that's more because you can't wear the armor/wield the weapon anymore, feasibly, and not because the enchantment just somehow doesn't work anymore). Honestly, I think it'd be AWESOME if your sword blade snapped in half, and you could still fight with the half-a-foot jagged nub of a blade to much less effect (almost like fighting with a broken liquor bottle in a bar brawl or something, heh), and STILL have that nub deal +5 fire damage, but without your swords initial 5-10 damage or whatever (maybe it's 1-2 now?).

 

But, ACTIVE magical items (wands, staves, things with charges, or with toggleable magic effects, etc.) could suffer their own form of durability. It would be more temporary, time-sensitive durability, though. Sort of... magic focus/channeling fatigue, if you will. That staff casts Chain Lightning? Great! Maybe the first cast fires 30-damage lightning, and jumps to 6 targets. If you cast again right after that, maybe it only fires 27-damage lightning that jumps to 5 targets. And so on. However, if you wait 20 seconds (arbitrary example duration), THEN cast again, it's able to produce maximum-efficiency Chain Lightning again at 30 damage and 6 jumps. It kinda works the same way as some like... I dunno, invisibility ring. Maybe it only makes you invisible for 3 minutes, then it deactivates and goes onto a cooldown. Well, with Chain lightning, it's kind of like you're activating an effect, then immediately deactivating it.


  • JFSOCC likes this

#169
Hassat Hunter

Hassat Hunter

    Royal Bug Catcher of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 5992 posts
  • Location:Out there, somewhere...
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

*Ponders*... I think "money sink" should always be a secondary objective of any mechanic. Just for what that's worth.

Money sink shouldn't even be secondary either in SINGLEPLAYER Roleplaying games.

The good developer-question would be "Well, what can we offer the player for it's money?" and then work from there to offer the player good incentives to spend it's money on those various things.
A very bad developer-question would be "Well, people got money. How do we MAKE them spend it?" (notice the complete different feel of the question). And then you get to 'goldsinks'. Which aren't made to be good incentives for player spendings.

It's a just a small difference in how to develop your economy in the game, but the result does influence the player alot. A game which is designed to give the player ample *choices* to spend their money on stuff would be a lot more fun to play than a game where the player is *FORCED* to spend their cash on various sinks.

I most certainly hope the OE-team is of the 'good kind' where they actually think well on economy and various ways to spend cash in meaningful and interesting ways that they don't have to resort to the goldsink just cause goldsink. I got worried here for a moment, but Sawyer already resolved that for me. So, currently, I have no reason to assume (yet anyway) to assume they try to make the economy the bad way (with forcing expenses on you rather than incentitives on what you can spend your cash on).
  • JFSOCC likes this

#170
Tagaziel

Tagaziel

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 743 posts
  • Location:Pseudo-state of Poland
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

rala.jpg


You are my hero.

#171
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Money sink shouldn't even be secondary either in SINGLEPLAYER Roleplaying games.


I actually agree with pretty much everything you said here (shortened your quote for brevity). I think what I meant by "money sink" wasn't very clear, and I really shouldn't have even used that term. I was thinking more of a very simplified definition of "something that money can be spent on." Like... the stronghold, for example. It's optional, but it was sort of being referred to as a money sink. Something that, if you so choose, is going to actually give you a use for your money, and, therefore, against the total potential income you can get throughout the game, give your money some actual strategic value.

In other words, I agree with the general idea that you kind of have to balance, to some degree, the income potential in a game with ways to actually use that money. If you always get 7,000,000 gold throughout the game, and there's only ever 500,000 in costs, total, throughout the game, then you've got a problem.

But, yeah, you really could just go the other way around: when you've got something that costs money, then balance the income potential so it's sufficient. It does get a bit tricky, though, when you've got a bunch of optional things. Because, you want a Mithril Longsword to be rare/costly, for example, but you also want there to be enough money in the game to be able to cover all the stuff you can do with a stronghold (which is probably WAY more costly than a single weapon). Well, if it's easy to get the money for the stronghold, but you don't do the stronghold, then now you've devalued the Mithril Longsword, because of the ease/potential of income.

So, yeah, I don't think anything should just be designed to force you to "sink" money for no other reason than to balance the "economy." But, if you zoom out and just look at the entire game, the game actually requires you to spend some amount of money to get through it. There's not a certain specific set of options you have to pick, but there is a minimum amount of expenditure involved across a range of options. So, in thinking of the things you have to spend some amount of money on, and the optional things you don't have to, but lose something for spending them on, I understand the label of something as a sort of monetary counter-weight. I think maybe "sink" is misleading, like I said, but it's kinda tricky to pinpoint this idea. At least for my feeble brain.

So, if something actually serves a purpose other than money balancing, then I don't really mind if it ALSO serves the purpose of money balancing. That's what I'm saying, I suppose. Once it's a secondary objective, that means another objective was already met, so that "money sink" is never going to be pointless.
  • Hassat Hunter and JFSOCC like this

#172
LordCrash

LordCrash

    Grand Weresheep of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1153 posts
  • Location:Germany
  • Steam:LordCrash88
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

They should avert "the money problem" in the first place by adjusting basic design. There should be only very limited options to get into possession of higher amount of money if at all. There simply shouldn't be an option to buy epic weapons and stuff at traders and if so only for a horrendous price you won't likely be able to pay for a single element. Spending money you get from corpses and looting on things like arrows and stuff, magical supplies and alchemistic supplies is ok.

 

But there is simply no need to give the player more money than just a few bucks to get that basic, daily life stuff. There is no need to put money in every crate and chest (it's poisoning immersion after all) or giving the player high amounts of money for quest rewards.

 

Give the players "intelligence" options to get epic stuff and upgrade the stronghold and things like that. Make them part of exploration, characters and quests. Make them connected to the world and the story and not to the need or luxury of spending insane amounts of money. That's just flawed design in the first place.


  • TrashMan, JFSOCC and Dayen like this

#173
Gnostic

Gnostic

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 52 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Gold Backer
  • Fig Backer

It is very simple, will it add to the fun factor in the game? If not the developers efforts are best diverted elsewhere.

 

For example a talking cursed sword that can eat / destoy some other items to gain some of their attribute literally and figuratively a double edge sword. Maybe some morning the PC will wake up and find some of his items is missing with the "acursed" sword whistling in the background, then some NPC accuse another NPC thief for theft with the cursed sword acting innocently.

 

If it is just a money sink, don't bother. What? Want to make crafting a viable skill? There are so many option like crafting can make the most badass item, or crafted items is better then the usual vendor items, or some attribute is rare enough that you can only consistently get it through crafting. For example to introduce vamparic life / mana sucking abilities in an item rare enough for the store items. You get a level 5 item in store with vamparic ability, then when you are level 9 you cannot find other vamparic items and other level 9 items are superior in stats that your vamparic level 5 items get outdated the only way to get a comparable level 9 items with vamparic is with crafting.......

Or something like attack speed, attack range, spell power.........



#174
Tauron

Tauron

    Master Elementalist of Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I think some form of durability should be implemented. It would be cool if it would be shown as visible feature. Maybe gritter, dirtier look on gear.

 

If you have been questing through mountains and forrests it shows. But it doesnt have to be shown like on player except like dirt or something like that. Having it in dialogue as well. Depending on your gear you might be excluded from certain places.

 

Also I like idea that you have to take care of your stuff, becouse I feel it makes sense. I am not sure how or how much it needs to be portrayed tho. It doesnt have to be shown in % ...but depends your characters skill and some "common sense" int and wisdom i guess. Evryone can see whn iron is rusty or like worn out somewhat, few can determine how much it being 'worn out' affects it overall use.



#175
Kinowek

Kinowek

    (1) Prestidigitator

  • Members
  • 47 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I voted no, because I do not feel durability mechanics add anything to the game but annoyance.  I'm a little shocked the poll is even as close as it is, surely fans of past IE games would have no tolerance whatsoever for their Crom Faeyrs breaking on some gnoll's skull?

 

It isn't challenging, it isn't fun to repair your weapons/armor every X fights. It's a chore.

 

As others have said, single player games do not need gold sinks. This isn't an MMO, and theoretically we will be spending money on the Stronghold anyway?

 

If for some weird reason they actually include Durability in the final release, I will be using one of the many mods to remove durability as soon as they are available(hopefully).

 

Conversely, if somebody actually wants Durability, I am sure there will be mods for it very soon after release as well, so DO NOT WASTE TIME WORKING ON DURABILITY, Obsidian.

 

If you feel crafting isn't strong enough, improve crafting/make more recipes/more options. Do not add a game wide penalty to give crafters something to do. That cure is worse than the disease.



#176
redneckdevil

redneckdevil

    Psycho Hillbilly of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1034 posts
  • Location:North carolina
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
Ill be honest. A lot of rpgs I've played had item degradation in them from morrowind to fonv. It did add a certain something on a character who wasn't a blacksmith have a sword go broke in the middle of a dungeon. It added that little something. Then I played skyrim and it did away with item degradation and it felt something was missing and it erk me (granted it was one of the MANY things that were missing but item degradation was actually mear the top of the list).
So me personally I'm happy to see item degradation in PE, it feels natural to me and adds that extra layer to the game. Hell it gives me a reason to carry more weapons.

#177
Lephys

Lephys

    Punsmith of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 7245 posts
  • Location:The Punforge
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

I'd still love to see it re-imagined.

 

The problem with most durability mechanic implementations is that they are a chore. The problem isn't that durability is a chore.

 

Hitpoints follow the same principle, and they aren't a chore. Status effects, too. Also not a chore. Ammo. Not a chore.

 

Plenty of things in the game must be replenished, and yet we enjoy them.

 

So, yeah, if done properly, it could be made an actual part of strategic/significant decision-making, as opposed to just something that always ticks down, and none of your characters so much as oil their own swords unless you manually tell them to do so, even though they apparently eat and go to the bathroom all the time, and bandage their own wounds and heal up when they sleep (all abstracted stuff in the game). But, every single attack contributes to your sword possibly cracking in half at some point, and you've got to manually fix it, which is just an extra thing you need to do and are never going to NOT do.

 

Really, to put it simply, there's got to be some aspect to the mechanic that provides SOME situational benefit to not fixing your weapon, and/or risking damage to it as opposed to avoiding damage to it.

 

Heck, even with Health, as it stands in PoE, you've got choices to make to better preserve it. Rotate people around, change tactics, etc.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: crafting, durability, poll

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users