Item Durability

All item durability can add to the game is either minor or major discomfort.

It WAS fitting in Fallout 3 and FNV because Survivalism was a major theme of Fallout Universe, and the athmosphere of people trying to stay alive on among the ruins of the world and using every trash and scrap to maintain their old and rag-tag equipment. But in a fantasy wold it will bring only discomfort and annoyance, as it was proven by Oblivion.

I highly doubt BG2 would be more interesting if similar mechanics would be implemented there and you have to constantly check your stuff before every venture.

I'm all against it.

One man's "discomfort" or "annoyance" is another's challenge. You shouldn't presume that other people dislike survival simulation mechanics simply because you don't.

Durability in itself sounds ok. Why shouldn't that happen.

 

But raises the question of artifact and legendary items and such, will they wear out, can you repair them?

Take a few swings with Narsil and it's halfway down to breaking? Will it then break in two after a few more swings?*

And then I'll reforge it back to full glory with my 2 skill points and a village forge?

 

 

 

Also, the notion that crafting skill prevents item wear is just bad.

Clearly comes from "lets balance stuff and invent uses for skills" instead of figuring out how things should work.

Putting a feature in that improves gameplay but doesn't make sense, gets thumbs down from me.

 

 

* doesn't matter if it's 6 swings or 600, the same principle applies

 

All item durability can add to the game is either minor or major discomfort.

It WAS fitting in Fallout 3 and FNV because Survivalism was a major theme of Fallout Universe, and the athmosphere of people trying to stay alive on among the ruins of the world and using every trash and scrap to maintain their old and rag-tag equipment. But in a fantasy wold it will bring only discomfort and annoyance, as it was proven by Oblivion.

I highly doubt BG2 would be more interesting if similar mechanics would be implemented there and you have to constantly check your stuff before every venture.

I'm all against it.

One man's "discomfort" or "annoyance" is another's challenge. You shouldn't presume that other people dislike survival simulation mechanics simply because you don't.

 

I could presume it because it is my opinion.

P.S. Also, Hardcore mode in FNV sounded good initially but in the end turned into a boring routine and ultimately failed to simulate hard and unforgiwing world of Wasteland.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Cultist

I think it's a bad idea. Group skills are a bad idea either more than one person needs to take the skill or you don't need to max the skill. Also you can just make your backup characters take the crafting skill and give your main party skills that they need during exploration.

This may not be feasible though as it probably is at odds with the design of the skill system in general, but it's another thought instead of having Item Durability.

Depends on the implementation. Expeditions: Conquistador had group skills. As I said further down in the post that it might be against the design principles of their current system but if it isn't it then some manner of relation to the person crafting isn't necessarily a bad idea. Tim already stated that you can use talents and skills etc from other party members as well as your own to make recipes so why couldn't you have another party member's crafting score augment your score within limitations (whether it was making a shortfall to the maximum points allowed for that class level or adding a percentage on top). It could be designed correctly given enough thought - obviously my 5 minute ponder is insignificant.

 

It accomplishes the same goal, just not in the weird relation to item degradation, where you to take crafting to know how to use a whetstone.

Durability is a good feature, if implemented well. It adds a little complexity to resource management, and makes the game more interesting in general.

 

For one thing, it provides another attribute to compare items by. For example, in Dark Souls, Crystal weapons were way overpowered, but they had such low durability that it was risky to upgrade a weapon along that path. Second, the crafting skill is pretty unnecessary if it's only used for creating unique weapons. Including durability gives crafters a real combat benefit. Finally, like Josh said, game needs money sinks. 

 

As long as items don't degrade too quickly. New Vegas was just a little on the fast side, but you could repair items on the go so it wasn't too annoying. Dark Souls nailed it. 

Durability in itself sounds ok. Why shouldn't that happen.

 

But raises the question of artifact and legendary items and such, will they wear out, can you repair them?

Take a few swings with Narsil and it's halfway down to breaking? Will it then break in two after a few more swings?*

And then I'll reforge it back to full glory with my 2 skill points and a village forge?

 

 

 

Also, the notion that crafting skill prevents item wear is just bad.

Clearly comes from "lets balance stuff and invent uses for skills" instead of figuring out how things should work.

Putting a feature in that improves gameplay but doesn't make sense, gets thumbs down from me.

 

 

* doesn't matter if it's 6 swings or 600, the same principle applies

Items don't 'break' but are just 'damaged', they don't stop working they just need a tune up every now and again, something I can see even legendary artefacts would need. Its not like reforging Narsil more like taking a whetstone to it and replacing the leather on the handle.

 

All item durability can add to the game is either minor or major discomfort.

It WAS fitting in Fallout 3 and FNV because Survivalism was a major theme of Fallout Universe, and the athmosphere of people trying to stay alive on among the ruins of the world and using every trash and scrap to maintain their old and rag-tag equipment. But in a fantasy wold it will bring only discomfort and annoyance, as it was proven by Oblivion.

I highly doubt BG2 would be more interesting if similar mechanics would be implemented there and you have to constantly check your stuff before every venture.

I'm all against it.

One man's "discomfort" or "annoyance" is another's challenge. You shouldn't presume that other people dislike survival simulation mechanics simply because you don't.

 

Except that it doesn't matter. IE games hadn't survival simulation mechanics at all. Many people think that they were better for it, others who like survival simulation would be alright to have it in every game. My opinion is when a matter divides the community in half, do it like it was in the IE games. After all that's what we paid for and not Arcanum 2

Edited July 3, 2013 by Malekith

Durability seems to be in it solely as a gold sink. Such mechanics have no place in a single player game, where the amount of gold can be closely limited anyway.

 

Some people like crafting, some don't. This is really one of the most polarized aspects of every game. Don't make crafting a must-have skill by tying it to several other game mechanics, like durability. Crafting should be done in such a way, that it's compelling enough by itself. People should not be forced to consider picking it as a lesser of two evils.

 

While each skill should be desirable by many, not all skills should be desirable by all.

Its not like reforging Narsil more like taking a whetstone to it and replacing the leather on the handle.

But you need to take the crafting skill to know how to use that whetstone

Edited July 3, 2013 by Sensuki

Let me be really clear: This is a singleplayer roleplaying game. Why would we even need moneysinks at all? What does it add? If a player chooses not to get a Stronghold, well, then let that player have a wealthy party. I don't see the problem with that. Money is generally not the be-all and end-all in roleplaying games anyway.

 

That and durability usually leads to more tedium and wasting of time spent on things (like walking back and forth, item juggling, etc) which aren't actually enjoyable. So why would we want this? 

 

It accomplishes the same goal, just not in the weird relation to item degradation, where you to take crafting to know how to use a whetstone.

 

No it doesn't accomplish the same goal. your System wouldn't help you during exploration, the system from obsidian would help you during exploration.

your System wouldn't help you during exploration

Good. Because that's the problem I have with it. I think it's dumb that you have to take crafting in order to be good with a whetstone and oilcloth.

 

Its not like reforging Narsil more like taking a whetstone to it and replacing the leather on the handle.

But you need to take the crafting skill to know how to use that whetstone

Yeah, and? Have you ever used a whetstone before? I haven't and I wouldn't know the best way to use it or when it should be used. Hollywood makes things like that look easy but it rarely is, in fact I know people who have tried to do such 'simple' things themselves and they report that they found it actually quite dangerous, nearly losing fingers and eyeballs in the attempt.

 

 

All item durability can add to the game is either minor or major discomfort.

It WAS fitting in Fallout 3 and FNV because Survivalism was a major theme of Fallout Universe, and the athmosphere of people trying to stay alive on among the ruins of the world and using every trash and scrap to maintain their old and rag-tag equipment. But in a fantasy wold it will bring only discomfort and annoyance, as it was proven by Oblivion.

I highly doubt BG2 would be more interesting if similar mechanics would be implemented there and you have to constantly check your stuff before every venture.

I'm all against it.

One man's "discomfort" or "annoyance" is another's challenge. You shouldn't presume that other people dislike survival simulation mechanics simply because you don't.

 

Except that it doesn't matter. IE games hadn't survival simulation mechanics at all. Many people think that they were better for it, others who like survival simulation would be alright to have it in every game. My opinion is when a matter divides the community in half, do it like it was in the IE games. After all that's what we paid for and not Arcanum 2

 

Most of the combat mechanics and character systems already revealed are nothing like IE AD&D systems, so I don't see your point.

I really don't like how these options are worded, because I don't feel it's my place to tell to developers what does and doesn't belong in their games.

Let's just say I'm not a fan of durability in RPGs (or at least in this kind of RPG) and I would be happier without it.

Not a huge fan of how the mechanic was presented, specially this part: "Specifically, every attack with a weapon degrades that weapon by one unit, and armor and shields are similarly degraded when the wearer is attacked." I think armor/shield degradation should be based on what kind of attack you've receive, not just on being attacked.

 

However, item degradation can presente interesting tactical options like spells that degrade or break equipment, fire and acid causing damage to the wearer and to the equipment over time, etc...

And what about a separate budget for the stronghold, if accumulation of money is what item degradation is supposed to fix? Actually, why shouldn't people who don't spend on the stronghold have more money for other things?

 

(the most crucially, why does this have to be fixed with an intrusive gameplay mechanic? - but that was already brought up)

Edited July 3, 2013 by centurionofprix

Heres a thought in regards to those who think one character should be enough to maintain everyone's equipment: who says they have the time or inclination to look after everyone's stuff? What, you expect them to be working away fixing all the armour while everyone else is around the campfire getting pissed? Look after your own damn sword bitches!

It might come down to the whole immersion versus gameplay thing again, but personally I have never felt repair mechanics contributed positively to gameplay. Perhaps they have mildly added to my experience in MMOs, but that's about it.

 

Ultimately, gameplay comes down to approaching situations with different chosen options or different levels of skill to a variable amount of success. To my eyes, repair simply comes down to "Either put stat points here or engage in multiple trips back to town". There's nothing skillful or tactical about it.

 

P:E could be the game whose resting and saving mechanics genuinely make this a tactical decision, however. But if they are going to try and do this they should be under no illusions of the repair mechanic's failures in past games.

 

Unless the team have a great concept to make this tactical, and are prepared to put the extra legwork in and risk player wrath by making repair a genuine concern, then I would say bail on it entirely.

Ultima Underworld style weapon breakage would be better

I'm against it. Never have a game had durability without it being bothersome. Systems should support central aspects of the game, not add annoying micromanagement and nonsensical penalties.

 

I'm also against the proposed crafting system.

 

None of the things in the latest update feels "Infinity Engine game"-like.

It might come down to the whole immersion versus gameplay thing again, but personally I have never felt repair mechanics contributed positively to gameplay. Perhaps they have mildly added to my experience in MMOs, but that's about it.

 

Ultimately, gameplay comes down to approaching situations with different chosen options or different levels of skill to a variable amount of success. To my eyes, repair simply comes down to "Either put stat points here or engage in multiple trips back to town". There's nothing skillful or tactical about it.

 

P:E could be the game whose resting and saving mechanics genuinely make this a tactical decision, however. But if they are going to try and do this they should be under no illusions of the repair mechanic's failures in past games.

 

Unless the team have a great concept to make this tactical, and are prepared to put the extra legwork in and risk player wrath by making repair a genuine concern, then I would say bail on it entirely.

Durability is a delicate matter and it is usually done badly but I don't think they shouldn't try it if they want to give it a shot. They went with with KS to be able to do what they want, try new things and take risks that publishers would not normally let them try. To avoid doing something new or controversial because of fear of backlash from people who may end up liking it would be a shame and waste in my eyes.

I wouldn't mind item degradation if it was just in the beginning of the game, but later on it would be annoying i guess. didn't non-magic weapons brake in baldur's gate? maybe something like that, but then again, is it worth implementing such a feature if it's only going to be a part of the early game..

I'm pleased with the item degradation mechanic because of the element of realism it provides. But perhaps it should just be part of the expert mode? That way all the cheese-eating surrender munchkins will be happy.

Edited July 3, 2013 by rjshae

Item breaking and repair should be here if it adds to the experience. This is an RPG with emphasis on story and tactics, so break mechanics need to tie in with one of those in a fun way. So either you add some random events which can break or damage some items (ie a ghost that makes all swords that strike it, rust) or you make it part of the tactics (with spells, abilities or items that damage equipped items). The important thing here is that those mechanics should be tied into the gameplay, and not a chore which doesn't depend on the gameplay and skill of the player.