LOL, Durability has been removed

[Monte Carlo]

Wow this is kinda stupid.  Baldur's gate had durability, it was just cheap as hell.  Or did me having to replace my longsword 5 times until I found "Varscona" just happen in my mind?  There are some things to get upset over... this was not one of them.  The skill choices will be less interesting as a result of this and one more element that when done right can offer a level of tension to the game is taken out... well... 

 

I don't mind modern game conventions.  I do mind seeing the game dumbed down just because people either don't like crafting or are too lazy to repair gear every once in awhile.

 

The 'durability' in BG1 was a plot device - i.e. the contaminated iron crisis. You couldn't repair anything and it *only* affected conventional weapons. It didn't exist in BG2.

 

In short, it's not exactly a brilliant comparison to use, nor is it a precedent.

 

Edit: Forgot to address the idea of being 'lazy.' This is a game. Not a chore. People that enjoy that level of micromanagement are fine, maybe there does need to be a hardcore / survival mode. As I said, however, there is no precedent in the titles from which this game is meant to be drawn so I'm surprised people are clamouring for it.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Monte Carlo

[Frenetic Pony]

Sweet.

 

Not that I don't like durability as a concept. But the way it was proposed was "your armor is perfect until it breaks, and then you have to repair it." Which doesn't give you any incentive to care about durability. It's just an annoyance you have to pay resources for every once in a blue moon. Imagine being in the middle of a dungeon and your tank's armor breaks "Oh great, all the way back to town and..." and that's the only actual consequence of such a system.

 

If it was interesting, I'd be all for it. But the way that was proposed wasn't interesting. And to be clear, not being able to repair it isn't interesting. Then it's just inevitable that everything you have will break eventually, and any actions you take one way or another can at most prolong the life of said item only by margins. I.E. your actions ultimately don't matter much, as that armor you have will break.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Frenetic Pony

[teknoman2]

 

so that minority, as some called it, was actualy an indication of the percentage of players who may have ditched the game just for that.

In all probability, it is a minority. I am completely confident that the vast majority of backers an potential buyers simply wouldn't have cared either way. I'm sure most backers receive emails about updates, but very few chose to voice an opinion on the matter. Realistically speaking, those most likely to say something on this topic are hardcore RPG fans with articulated opinions on RPG design, and I doubt that these are in the majority anywhere in any group.

 

So yes, while the decision to take out durability and crafting skill may have saved P:E some customers at the cost of causing minor butthurt to others (me), I highly doubt it would have made a noticeable difference, economically speaking, to keep durability and crafting as is.

 

i too dont care either way, but i think it was an overall poor decision to put in an unspecified "crafting" skill connected to the durability of items, in order to give incentive for players to raise that skill on more than 1 character. there are far better ways to do it as i said in another post

[Hassat Hunter]

It seems to me people fear 'Obsidian going back to due to feedback' more than that they actually want durability in. They aren't in arms because they really love durability, but they rather think Obsidian loves it, and they only went back on it due to feedback.

 

To them I see... why fear feedback? Kickstarter is there exact for that reason. So games can be made for us, developers keep in contact with their fanbase. And if they're given feedback THEY TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT. It's not mandatory they change it, it's not mandatory they even listen. But if they don't then there's no point at all using Kickstarter. Then it would be just another game like publishers THINK we want. You know, with ample quick-time events, no dice-rolls at all, all characterbased action, full VO, dialogue wheels and who-knows-what-not.

So ask yourself a question; Do you REALLY want that? Do you really want them to make assumptions? To just guess what's good and right and we see at release day if they were right? Or use this opportunity to actually take a peek into the backers mind and see what they think? Gain value feedback on things like this, or the UI, and maybe get some pretty good suggestions out of it.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[FlintlockJazz]

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really. Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game, god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

[Sacred_Path]

i too dont care either way, but i think it was an overall poor decision to put in an unspecified "crafting" skill connected to the durability of items, in order to give incentive for players to raise that skill on more than 1 character. there are far better ways to do it as i said in another post

Durability would have meant a money sink that actually works because you have to repair items (on the higher difficulties). Now they contemplate letting you pour money into your stronghold etc. which may not be necessary at all (players may end up not doing it) which is just beautification bullcrap. No one needs that.

[jethro]

 ....innovate .... new ... different...

 

Really? weapon degradation is new, innovative and different? It's in World of Warcraft (!!!) and hundreds other MMOs, Fallout 3, ....

 

To be fair, the exact way how they put it in is new, but you can say that about the complete rule set of this game.

 

 

 

Durability would have meant a money sink that actually works because you have to repair items (on the higher difficulties). Now they contemplate letting you pour money into your stronghold etc. which may not be necessary at all (players may end up not doing it) which is just beautification bullcrap. No one needs that.

 

 

Durability as money sink can be substituted completely by getting less for vendoring your loot, both is a percentage drain on your loot value. But only one needs extra UI space and programming and player time without any real decisions.

 

But the more important point: Why should stronghold be only beautification crap?

 

Only one example: You can put a training academy into your stronghold for 400.000 gold. Since it can be assumed that you will use that facility and its trainers, everyone in your party gains +1 constitution permanently (maybe immediately, maybe a few months later). Next upgrade buys a few famous grandmaster teacher to your academy for 1.2 Mio. gold. This gains you +1 AC for everyone (or bonuses dependend on the specific teachers you hire, if a more fine-tuned approach is needed).

 

+1 AC is a great bonus, but it costs a lot. You can decide if it is worth it or the legendary weapon you can buy for 500.000 gold at your secret society is the better investment.

Edited July 7, 2013 by jethro

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Personally, I have never felt that crafting suits adventure games. Player characters are transient adventurers, not mundane townies taking up a trade that requires permacy. That being said, Arcanum is probably the only games I have ever played in which I felt crafting was useful, balanced, and engaging. I found it generally agreeable in Storm of Zehir as well, though not as much as in Arcanum.

 

I digress.

 

My ultimate decision to vote against item durability, was that I felt it pushed players to choose crafting skills, and penalized characters whom do not. I don't typically hate item durability, but I cannot think of many instances where I felt that it enhanced gameplay outside of the survival genre. I believe their choice to remove item durability was sound.

[teknoman2]

 

i too dont care either way, but i think it was an overall poor decision to put in an unspecified "crafting" skill connected to the durability of items, in order to give incentive for players to raise that skill on more than 1 character. there are far better ways to do it as i said in another post

Durability would have meant a money sink that actually works because you have to repair items (on the higher difficulties). Now they contemplate letting you pour money into your stronghold etc. which may not be necessary at all (players may end up not doing it) which is just beautification bullcrap. No one needs that.

 

even so i never understood the need for a money sink. have available for sale special items that cost a lot but can be aquired before you get to the point of the game where similar items are part of the loot and there you have it... the player will spend his cash to keep part of his gear a step ahead of the competition.

[centurionofprix]

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really.

This wasn't something new or innovative. It wasn't some "risky" stroke of maverick genius, just a choice of whether to include a common (also to publisher-funded games) mechanic to deal with the problem of late-game economy. Nor does it, for whatever that would signify, have anything to do with publishers being right (?!).

 

 

Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game,

Good riddance; the game would obviously have been better off with a different mechanic, or a different implementation of the original (and not planet scanning either...). You're seriously using Mako exploration as an example of how the designers should stick to any idea that comes up?

 

 

god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

Sure, but guns are part of the setting and the vision of the game, and Obsidian wouldn't -didn't!- get rid of them merely due to some shrill voices on the forums, whereas there were good reasons for doing away with durability (which wasn't even a central mechanic to the game, just a device to fix a minor problem of ecomony).

Edited July 7, 2013 by centurionofprix

[nikolokolus]

I sort of like durability mechanics in games, because it gives me another thing to track and manage as I progress through them, but I don't think it's pivotal to my enjoyment of an RPG.  I read Sawyer's reasoning for why it was removed and I'm satisfied with his explanation.  

 

Just so long as I have interesting environments to explore, difficult decisions to make and engaging combat to "engage" in, then all of these controversies are going to fade into the black and I'll scarcely remember that they ever existed.

[Micamo]

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really. Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game, god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

It's a testament to just how much of a rut the fantasy genre is in that early firearms and weapon/armor durability is what counts for "taking risks."

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really.

This wasn't something new or innovative. It wasn't some "risky" stroke of maverick genius, just a choice of whether to include a common (also to publisher-funded games) mechanic to deal with the problem of late-game economy. Nor does it, for whatever that would signify, have anything to do with publishers being right (?!).

 

 

Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game,

Good riddance; the game would obviously have been better off with a different mechanic, or a different implementation of the original (and not planet scanning either...). You're seriously using Mako exploration as an example of how the designers should stick to any idea that comes up?

 

 

god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

Sure, but guns are part of the setting and the vision of the game, and Obsidian wouldn't -didn't!- get rid of them merely due to some shrill voices on the forums, whereas there were good reasons for doing away with durability (which wasn't even a central mechanic to the game, just a device to fix a minor problem of ecomony).

 

 

First off, yes it was risky since it was clear including durability would cause a strong reaction from people on the forums, and it was a new system of durability, they were trying to tie it in with the crafting skill, so yes they were trying to innovate. 

 

Second, people cried demanding the removal of the mako when all it needed was the controls and environment fine tuning, Bioware actually tried something new there and instead of building on it we got the planet scanning instead because people didn't like the Mako's implementation.  Even without the planet scanning ME2 suffered for the lack of Makoness since the entire game felt smaller, and I actually enjoyed the mako and never had a problem with it, so maybe they did improve the Mako for the PC version.  The durability system that Obsidian was proposing was even rather mild, yet people seemed to concoct bull**** about how it would force players to do this or that when clearly it wouldn't.  Hell, half of them didn't actually seem to have read the actual proposal before screeching.

 

Third, the point I was making with that last bit there is that it would appear the publishers are right, that the idea of anything new is unwanted by the general populace, even amongst those who claim otherwise.  I never said that Obsidian got rid of them, so I dunno where you got that, guess you're strawmanning there.  It's a shame, but that's the impression I'm starting the get, whether Obsidian goes along with the demands or not is irrelevant to that point.  People clearly don't actually want to take risks and try new things. 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

I'm disappointed, not just in the loss of durability but also in the kneejerk reaction of the community and how, when we were given the opportunity for a game to innovate and take risks because of freedom from publishers instead was shouted and screamed into not doing anything new, proving the publishers right that we don't want anything new or different really. Congratulations you have managed to get rid of the mako before it even got into the game, god forbid they try anything different hell many of you want to get rid of the guns because its not 'fantasy', the publishers were right all along...

It's a testament to just how much of a rut the fantasy genre is in that early firearms and weapon/armor durability is what counts for "taking risks."

 

Yep, and the backlash against even that probably means that most developers are too scared to try anything more extreme.

[Micamo]

Yep, and the backlash against even that probably means that most developers are too scared to try anything more extreme.

Comically missing the point, much? Early firearms and item degrading are probably the least risky modifications to the Standard Average Fantasy RPG I cam think of.

[nikolokolus]

I'd love to see the look on some of your faces if you were a player in my Castles and Crusades PnP game and a rust monster wandered across your character's path in a cavern.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Yep, and the backlash against even that probably means that most developers are too scared to try anything more extreme.

Comically missing the point, much? Early firearms and item degrading are probably the least risky modifications to the Standard Average Fantasy RPG I cam think of.

 

No I got your point, it wasn't a good point and your post actually backed my point up, hence my response. 

[Sacred_Path]

It was a very good point. I can't count the times I've heard an argument like "this element doesn't belong in this game because it's also in MMO's!" and general skepticism against innovation/ features that were standard coming back (like games w/o omnipresent teleportation fields and quick travel). A number of people are actively contributing to the creative decline of the genre.

[forgottenlor]

It was a very good point. I can't count the times I've heard an argument like "this element doesn't belong in this game because it's also in MMO's!" and general skepticism against innovation/ features that were standard coming back (like games w/o omnipresent teleportation fields and quick travel). A number of people are actively contributing to the creative decline of the genre.

 

 I agree, just because something is in a newer game, doesn't mean its necessarily bad. The question is if such a mechanic can be used in a infinity style game and improve that game. For me the worst part of most newer RPGs is that mechanics are dumbed down so that you can't misbuild your character or group. The flip side of the coin is that groups cease to exist, characters don't have many options, and strategy is replaced by how fast you can click your mouse button. I think one needs to divide features which add more comfort from those that ruin games mechanics. My first RPG was Bard's tale 3. I went back and played it recently. I still enjoyed it, especially all the crazy character options,  but playing without an automap and having to type in the names of your spells is annoying, even if back then it was standard.  I'm not sure though that durability as such adds alot to gameplay, just like I'm not sure it really damages it either. Quick travel though, for example, was a big improvement in Oblivion over Morrowind. Unfortunately there were also a number of steps backwards in Oblivion though, and most have them had to do with dumbing down mechanics.

[Nonek]

I've never minded a bit of a challenge, a soupcon of strategic planning, and a touch of trial and error, mainly because ultimately for me thay lead to a greater sense of accomplishment when I succeed. If everything is handed to me, as i'm finding is all too prevalant in most modern games, then I grow bored and uninspired. What is the point of a game but to challenge the player after all, through learning its systems, adapting oneself and mastering them. A well crafted and logical narrative is important to me, but not so important as to overlook the gameplay aspect of the experience.

 

I suppose in prioritising accessibility many developers have overlooked achievement, and unknowingly begun to starve those who are seeking a touch more meatier fare for their palette.

[Rostere]

I don't think a RPG without durability is bad, it does not need to be bad at all. But I think it's quite awful that they changed their mind over what a few whiners said. Obviously a RPG with perfect durability mechanics is going to be better, but it may be true that instead of balancing durability, they now have time for other stuff.

[Micamo]

I've never minded a bit of a challenge, a soupcon of strategic planning, and a touch of trial and error, mainly because ultimately for me thay lead to a greater sense of accomplishment when I succeed. If everything is handed to me, as i'm finding is all too prevalant in most modern games, then I grow bored and uninspired. What is the point of a game but to challenge the player after all, through learning its systems, adapting oneself and mastering them. A well crafted and logical narrative is important to me, but not so important as to overlook the gameplay aspect of the experience.

I think the point of a game is to engage the player. Challenges are one way to engage a player but they aren't the *only* way, and I've honestly never played an RPG that manages to do this successfully in any way deeper than simple skinner box mechanics. Personally, my best experiences with RPGs aren't the parts where the DM decides to "challenge" me with a difficult combat encounter, they're the parts where I interact with the characters and the world.

[rjshae]

Q. How many gamers does it take to replace a light bulb?

A. Just one, but first he needs to roll a 1d6 and consult the table below.

1. Pause to post a complaint in the P:E forums about how the light bulb isn't innovative. Roll again.
2. Roll for critical fail on ascending the step ladder. If successful, bulb replaced. Otherwise you must retreat to a rest area. Roll again.
3. Notice that the light bulb has failed its durability quotient. Seek out a light bulb smith and get it replaced. Roll again.
4. Light bulb replacement is not allowed for your class. Ask the wife to do it.
5. You have a random encounter with a small domestic animal. If you survive, roll again.
6. Decide that light bulb replacement is degenerate activity. Instead, you decide to go and have a nap. Roll again.

Edited July 7, 2013 by rjshae

[TrashMan]

 

So basically y'all admit having no faith that Sawyer and his team would have: good judgment to recognise minor "whinage" as exactly that--minor and forgettable; the intellect to prioritize their own mechanics and systemic design; and the decision-making balls to keep and discard what they feel is both true to PE and beneficial to player enjoyment. (You must have missed his responses later in the update thread, too.)

 

 

So those of us who liked Sawers idea now "have no faith" in him?

And those that railed agaisnt it now have faith?

If it wasnt' so sad, it would be funny.

 

 

 

If a "minor detail" is received between lukewarm and negatively by some significant number of players, at least those interested enough to follow the KS updates and actually voice opinion, obviously it should be easily discarded or heavily tweaked precisely because it's "minor." (Though I'd argue it wasn't minor when tied to crafting that way, and the mere addition as a "gold sink" and little else beyond making crafting more useful are all the wrong reasons. They weren't adding it as resource management.)

 

"Significant number of players" is an illusion. What happens here is what happens in politics areound the world. There has been a shift from the mases/majority pushing a change, to a overly-vocal minority pushingit.

The biggest fanatics and the most obsessed people are the oens shaing the world these days - because they shout the hardest and again and again, thus creating the impression of mass.

[Cultist]

Dead Island. Grrrrrrrreat enjoyment in being stuffed with 5 weapons and constantly repairing them. Oh, and by the way - repairs were cheap and accessable. Somehow, upon leveling up everyone chosen Durability without a single thought.

 

1. Delving into dungeon with Hammer of the Gods +40 that I managed to aquire early in some epic quest.

2. A room full of of rats.

3. Waste my ultra-expensive weapon durability on rats? With repair costing me a fortune? Nevurrrr! Here, take some short swords and wave for 5 minutes BG style due to lack of to hit bonus.

4. Oh, wow, Lich teleported in a room after you killed all gibberlings!

5. Click 1 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

6. Click 2 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

7. Click 3 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

8. Click 4 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

9. Click 5 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

10. Click 6 Character=>Open inventory=>Change weapon=>close inventory

11. ENJOYMENT!!!

Edited July 8, 2013 by Cultist