LOL, Durability has been removed

[TrashMan]

Oh my, I wont have to visit a vendor every 10 minute and click the "repair all" button like I do in The Old Republic. I miss it already, it's so much fun having to click that button. Click, click, click.

OH, THE COMPLEXITY.

 

Yeah, good freakin' riddance.

 

The only thing you are proving is your ismall-mindedness.

You are dicounting a system IN PRINCIPLE based on a single implementation.

 

Because CLEARLY all games are the same and ALL games have EXACTLY THE SAME implementation of ALL mechanics.

 

Oh wait. Resting. So much fun. I have to click something! Let's drop it. Auto-heal after each battle.

Drinking poitions? Also clicking! Let's drop that too.

Oh, let's not even begin with combat. I have to CLICK on an enemy!! THE SHEER BOREDOM! THE TEDIUM! IT IS KILLING ME!

 

 

 

 

Let's add weight too to make the system even more annoying (The Witcher II, Drakensang).

 

Drakensang is easily one of the best CRPG's out there mechnics-wise.

 

 

 

 

Can't say I found a game where crafting was actually any fun, and not something I completely ignored.

 

Tehrefore, no such game can possibly exist?

 

And therefore, there's no way you can suffer trough an extra click or two occasionaly, even tough it would improve the game for so many other people?

Clearly, that is too much to sacrifice, because frak everyone else.

[TrashMan]

Oh, it works fine in System Shock II, so I know it can be done.

But *I* can't see it work at all in an IE-type game. Different game, different rules, different definitions of whats good and bad for the game.

 

They might think adding aliens in. Would work in a LOT of games. But in a fantasy game like PE it would just be out of place. Should they add them now just so they can? Or maybe think hard what it would add, and if nothing, just not do that?

 

The Ilithid want to say hi.

 

Also, bolded the relevant. Funyn how your lack of imagination/vision should become everyone elses problem.

[TrashMan]

* shrugs *

 

Sawyer can't win. If he doesn't change stuff he's arrogant and if he does he's pandering.

 

I read what he said and it sounds reasonable to me. He's stuck to his guns on a load of other controversial stuff (and we have to trust his judgement) and listened to us on some others (the hyperbole in this thread is awesome... suggesting design-by-committee for removing something as small yet potentially annoying as item durability? LOLOLOLOLOL)

 

So kudos to Sawyer as far as I'm concerned.

 

Normally I'd agree with you...but you hit the nail on the head in the underlined part.

 

POTENTIALLY ANNOYING.

Also POTENTIALLY GREAT.

But quite a few people saw only the first and are blind to the second potential.

 

Personly I'd prefer if they stuck with it. Keep it and test it in beta/alpha.

Then if it doesn't work it can be tweaked or removed.

 

As it is, a system is being removed without us even seeing if it's potential can be reached.

 

 

 

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.

 

By definition, a deep game will give players a lot of options and things to do. And not everyone will like everything offered equally.

Saiyng "X is a chore" is somewhat irrelevant, given that in a big, deep game tehre is ALWAYS going to be something that someone considers a chore. The question is if the game is good enough that he won't mind it.

Some of the best games out there have things that can be easiy yclassified as chores. Different things to different peoples. Some consider inventory tetris a chore. Others consider it a part of the experience.

Soem don't wnat resting. 

Some don't want to travel on foot but want instant-travel. Or quest markers.

 

 

But the point is that those "chores" are there.

And without them, those games wouldn't be as great.

Edited July 8, 2013 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

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!!!

 

 

...

 

Seems to me liek you are letting your fear get the beter of you.

So that game had a bad implementation of a durability mechanic. Does that mean PE will have the same mechanic? Nope.

But people keep projecting their fears to a redicolous levels.

 

A little while ago I proposed a durabiltiy system that makes that specific example impossible. Which proves that for any problem regarding mechanics you can find a solution if you just use your little grey cells and have a bit of creativity.

 

[LadyCrimson]

Dead Island's durability mechanic was indeed extreme and terrible. But I'd agree with TrashMan that using one of the worst examples as a reason why durability always sucks/should never be used or something is a tad hyperbole-ish.

 

As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of durability in games, but there have been plenty of games I've played that had it, where it bothered me not at all. Which isn't to say I enjoyed that it existed per se ... only that it was implemented in such a way that during actual gameplay, it really had little impact on me, unless I was trying something super duper oddball that sort of forced the issue, and even then it wasn't much of a thing. eg, I didn't feel inconvenienced by its mere existence, so if other players enjoyed having it there...why not.

[Hassat Hunter]

The only thing you are proving is your ismall-mindedness.

You are dicounting a system IN PRINCIPLE based on a single implementation.

 

Because CLEARLY all games are the same and ALL games have EXACTLY THE SAME implementation of ALL mechanics.

They clearly stated the working of the mechanic in the update.

So yes, I and everyone was pretty well aware of the implentation of the mechanic they had in mind.

And yes, it matches up the implentation of TOR. Hence the comparisson.

 

The only thing you prove is your disability to read, if we're going out to calling names here... :/ 

Drakensang is easily one of the best CRPG's out there mechnics-wise.

It's crafting sucked though. Also looting became a chore since it was pretty much always crafting ingredients instead of something nicer.

Tehrefore, no such game can possibly exist?

Yes. It can. But this durability system has by itself nothing to do with being crafting, only indeed being a goldsink (as others said, you need those in SP-games?) and an annoyance.

Also, bolded the relevant. Funyn how your lack of imagination/vision should become everyone elses problem.

My imagination is fine.

A repair 'goldsink' doesn't add depth, doesn't add choice, doesn't add anything for hardcore gamers. Repair isn't a choice. It's a simple 'click here to desposit gold'. It's not making a choice what to do with your gold, it's just... there taking gold.

A GOOD strategic game I expect PE to be would give you choices for your gold. That nice item, that upgrade, the bribe, healing, training? You would have a limited amount of gold and have to make choices where to spend it.

A BAD strategic game, which I hope PE wont be will shower you in gold, and in order to cope with that has to make up arbitrary rules to get your gold away from you, like repair, taxes or loan for your party. Since it's an upkeep, not a choice, it doesn't add anything for the gamer.

 

And yes, that is something I rather don't see. Sorry that my imagination doesn't think adding a goldsink to the game 'just 'cause' is a good development...

Sorry I rather like gold giving the gamer choices, something to think about than a button that drains gold.

[Hassat Hunter]

Example...

 

GOOD RPG-development;

"Sir, we have a faminine in our crops. We need 200 gold!"

Options;

1) Give gold

2) Give gold, demand part of harvest in return

3) Loan gold

4) Fire farmer, hire new ones

5) Take over the weakened lands

6) Simply ignore demand

Etc. etc. etc.

(Choice)

 

BAD RPG development;

"Sir. Keep upkeep is 10 gold per day. You haven't visited for 5 days. That means you need to pay 50 gold to use any keep-features"

(Simply gold cost, the player's only choices are simply pay or not pay. And overall not paying is not an option...)

 

See the difference?

[Micamo]

Normally I'd agree with you...but you hit the nail on the head in the underlined part.

 

POTENTIALLY ANNOYING.

Also POTENTIALLY GREAT.

But quite a few people saw only the first and are blind to the second potential.

 

Personly I'd prefer if they stuck with it. Keep it and test it in beta/alpha.

Then if it doesn't work it can be tweaked or removed.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation."

[JFSOCC]

Here's how I see it.

A mechanic got announced.

Many saw issues with its implementation, they proceeded to point it out.

the feedback was read and considered

after consideration, the mechanic got altered.

Now a few of those who had not spoken against the original implementation start whining

"Ooh, you pander to the majority, the game will start being made for the lowest common denominator

Except that Obsidian has held its own vision against a majority opinion before, and it's a slippery slope fallacy

"Oh you pander to the vocal minority, their voice is not representative of the majority opinion"

Ignoring the arguments made by the 'vocal minority', ignoring that it's not a democracy, ignoring the STATEMENT made my Josh Sawyer that after listening to the feedback and arguing it over with the other devs that the development team came to the conclusion themselves. Ignoring the fact that you have NO ****ING IDEA how representative the 'vocal minority' is or isn't.

Although, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's going to be about the same percentages of forumgoers as it is the percentages of backers.

 

There are a few here who seem to feel that their opinion must be the majority opinion, that their opinion must be the design, and who have trouble accepting that not everyone can be pleased all the time.

Instead of praising obsidian for listening and responding to feedback, you give them grief because they don't do what you want.

Which is pretty much the definition of whining.

 

If you truly believe durability should stay in, you have had ample space to argue what makes it such a good mechanic.

But I don't see those arguments, the arguments I say are against the decision making process, rather than about the mechanic.

 

It sounds like a bunch of people are upset that they didn't get what they want, even though they didn't know they wanted it until update 58 was released.

 

You can't please everyone all the time. TBH I would have preferred a different crafting system altogether. But I'm ok with this.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Normally I'd agree with you...but you hit the nail on the head in the underlined part.

 

POTENTIALLY ANNOYING.

Also POTENTIALLY GREAT.

But quite a few people saw only the first and are blind to the second potential.

 

Personly I'd prefer if they stuck with it. Keep it and test it in beta/alpha.

Then if it doesn't work it can be tweaked or removed.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation."

Actually no we have mentioned what it brings so don't bull****. I myself have mentioned how it brings in a resource that needs to be managed and how it helps to simulate the party getting worn down, hell you even responded to it but I guess you're choosing to ignore it now in an attempt to deny that we have actually put reasons forward.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Well you see wrong then. First off people did defend the system before it was removed. Second, the problem isn't that people pointed out what was wrong with but that some people attacked the very idea of a durability system at all, demanding its removal without ever considering that it might work and making presumptions about it that had no basis in reality. The rest of your post consists of strawman and bull**** so isn't worth responding to.

 

Oh and most of the criticism is being leveled at the posters who attacked durability without giving it any thought or chance, not at Obsidian. Get your facts straight please.

Edited July 8, 2013 by FlintlockJazz

[LadyCrimson]

I think there is/was two actual main issues - the concept of durability itself, and tying durability to crafting as a possible/alternate gold sink or something.

 

Durability as a mechanic, if done well, can/does add some of that "realism" mechanic that some people like (akin to having to manage hunger, thirst, inventory weight, etc.). I would not say it's an automatic bad design just because armor degrades in combat and one has to repair it occasionally. Now, I personally don't like to manage such things to a great extent, even in a story-RPG ... but that's why I'm always fine with some kind of expert/hardcore option that includes them or has a more severe version of it.

[mstark]

 

Well you see wrong then. First off people did defend the system before it was removed. Second, the problem isn't that people pointed out what was wrong with but that some people attacked the very idea of a durability system at all, demanding its removal without ever considering that it might work and making presumptions about it. The rest of your post consists of strawman and bull**** so isn't worth responding to.

 

First of all, ask yourself this: do I trust the Obsidian development team?

 

If the answer to this is no, then the issue is larger than the mere removal of durability, and if you can build a compelling argument around it, that might make for a very interesting discussion.

 

If the answer is yes, then please consider that the team read both the for and against arguments provided in many locations on the forum. They, likely intentionally, stayed quiet for a few days, reading replies, discussed internally, and after evaluating with the team came to the conclusion that there might be even better ways to handle game economy than durability. We don't know the reasons for why they came to this conclusion, I would say it's probably because in order to implement durability well, as many pointed out, it needs to have a major gameplay impact, and that might be too time consuming design-wise. In the end, that time could be spent designing something more enjoyable for us players. But who am I to say.

Edited July 8, 2013 by mstark

[mstark]

 

Oh and most of the criticism is being leveled at the posters who attacked durability without giving it any thought or chance, not at Obsidian. Get your facts straight please.

 

Much of the for/against arguments were given without much thought. Fortunately, the Obsidian team, presumably, did give it some actual thought. And they made a decision based on it.

[TrashMan]

 

They clearly stated the working of the mechanic in the update.

So yes, I and everyone was pretty well aware of the implentation of the mechanic they had in mind.

And yes, it matches up the implentation of TOR. Hence the comparisson.

 

The only thing you prove is your disability to read, if we're going out to calling names here... :/

 

 

Aha.. Because you clearly were ery helpfull to the developers and immediately suggested ways to make the system work.

No, you went "This system sucks. Durability sucks! No durability!"

 

 

 

My imagination is fine.

A repair 'goldsink' doesn't add depth, doesn't add choice, doesn't add anything for hardcore gamers. Repair isn't a choice. It's a simple 'click here to desposit gold'. It's not making a choice what to do with your gold, it's just... there taking gold.

 

 

 

It sucks, becuase all you do is complain and demand removeal.

NOT ONCE did you suggest a way to improve it.

 

Repair isn't a choice? It's click here?

Tell me, what abotu resting at the inn? What about purchasing a potion? Isn't THAT in essence also "click and deposit gold here"?

 

Yes, it IS A choice. You choose to repair an item or not. Will you spend your mony on something else and use your secondary weapon till you get more money? Will you continue with your damaged weapon and risk it breaking? Maybe your hoping you'll find a better one along the way?

 

Repair is more than a gold sink it's a also a ecomomic/strategic consideration.

 

 

A GOOD strategic game I expect PE to be would give you choices for your gold. That nice item, that upgrade, the bribe, healing, training? You would have a limited amount of gold and have to make choices where to spend it.

 

A BAD strategic game, which I hope PE wont be will shower you in gold, and in order to cope with that has to make up arbitrary rules to get your gold away from you, like repair, taxes or loan for your party. Since it's an upkeep, not a choice, it doesn't add anything for the gamer.

 

Yes and spending money on mantainance and repairs or something else IS A choice, and it's not arbitrary. Weapons DO need mantainance.

 

And yes, that is something I rather don't see. Sorry that my imagination doesn't think adding a goldsink to the game 'just 'cause' is a good development...

Sorry I rather like gold giving the gamer choices, something to think about than a button that drains gold.

 

If you really think durabiltiy exists "just because"...well, I defianetly feel something being drained here.. but I don't think it's gold.

Edited July 8, 2013 by TrashMan

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

Well you see wrong then. First off people did defend the system before it was removed. Second, the problem isn't that people pointed out what was wrong with but that some people attacked the very idea of a durability system at all, demanding its removal without ever considering that it might work and making presumptions about it. The rest of your post consists of strawman and bull**** so isn't worth responding to.

 

First of all, ask yourself this: do I trust the Obsidian development team?

 

If the answer to this is no, then the issue is larger than the mere removal of durability, and if you can build a compelling argument around it, that might make for a very interesting discussion.

 

If the answer is yes, then please consider that the team read both the for and against arguments provided in many locations on the forum. They, likely intentionally, stayed quiet for a few days, reading replies, discussed internally, and after evaluating with the team came to the conclusion that there might be even better ways to handle game economy than durability. We don't know the reasons for why they came to this conclusion, I would say it's probably because in order to implement durability well, as many pointed out, it needs to have a major gameplay impact, and that might be too time consuming design-wise. In the end, that time could be spent designing something more enjoyable for us players. But who am I to say.

This isn't about the decision that Obsidian made, though the kneejerk reactions of some people probably didn't help and there are some cawing that they influenced the decision, but the kneejerk reaction itself and how the community is so averse to risk as to make the publishers right in their decisions. People putting forward criticisms and pointing out where it could go wrong is great, I'm not normally a fan of durability myself, but the outright rejection and claims they would never play the game with it was depressing. Edited July 8, 2013 by FlintlockJazz

[TrashMan]

Example...

 

GOOD RPG-development;

"Sir, we have a faminine in our crops. We need 200 gold!"

Options;

1) Give gold

2) Give gold, demand part of harvest in return

3) Loan gold

4) Fire farmer, hire new ones

5) Take over the weakened lands

6) Simply ignore demand

Etc. etc. etc.

(Choice)

 

BAD RPG development;

"Sir. Keep upkeep is 10 gold per day. You haven't visited for 5 days. That means you need to pay 50 gold to use any keep-features"

(Simply gold cost, the player's only choices are simply pay or not pay. And overall not paying is not an option...)

 

See the difference?

 

One is a logical, constant expenditure, and one is a event like a mini-quest and are thus compeltely different, thus any comparison is meaningless?

[TrashMan]

 

Normally I'd agree with you...but you hit the nail on the head in the underlined part.

 

POTENTIALLY ANNOYING.

Also POTENTIALLY GREAT.

But quite a few people saw only the first and are blind to the second potential.

 

Personly I'd prefer if they stuck with it. Keep it and test it in beta/alpha.

Then if it doesn't work it can be tweaked or removed.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation."

 

 

I believe I have proposed changes to the system that improve it.

 

See, your problem here is that you were fixated on exactly what Sawyer proposed, as if it were the final draft.

People were quick to point out the flaws without suggesting anything other than "ditch durability". Which is redicolous.

It's like giving up without a fight.

 

Edited July 8, 2013 by TrashMan

[Nixl]

 

Normally I'd agree with you...but you hit the nail on the head in the underlined part.

 

POTENTIALLY ANNOYING.

Also POTENTIALLY GREAT.

But quite a few people saw only the first and are blind to the second potential.

 

Personly I'd prefer if they stuck with it. Keep it and test it in beta/alpha.

Then if it doesn't work it can be tweaked or removed.

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation."

 

If I may put forth an example, in System Shock 2 players had to preserve ammo as well as guns because most weapons, aside from the trusty wrench, degraded very quickly and repair was limited.  This type of durability added an additional consideration to engaging in a fight.  The consideration was that while a gun may end an encounter faster and easier, it meant that you had less options for future encounters.  This, in my opinion, is what a durability system could add. 

 

Now, I am not saying that System Shock 2 and the system proposed here would have been the same.  In System Shock 2, the environment was very controlled, while in PE we will have an open expansive world.  In such a world, gold likely will be available in great quanities and depending on how random encounters work, we will always have something to sell.  The question/issue is how much extra gold will we have around.   

 

Nonetheless, I did think that durability could add an additional edge or survival mechanic to combat if given some more time to develop. 

Edited July 8, 2013 by Nixl

[JFSOCC]

People were quick to point out the flaws without suggesting anything other than "ditch durability". Which is redicolous.

It's like giving up without a fight.

I did feel the same way about that. There were alternatives to be considered, rather than just "abort"

[Cultist]

Aha.. Because you clearly were ery helpfull to the developers and immediately suggested ways to make the system work.

No, you went "This system sucks. Durability sucks! No durability!"

Allow me to translate your text:

"You contribute nothing! All you have to do is invest SOME to get 500% in return after first month. And yet you refuse to invite five of your friends to invest in our promising business. But no, you just complain and complain. Questioning the safety of your money instead of thinking about the future, expensive car and your own villa."

[Stun]

And you believe it has potential to be great based on... what, exactly? I've seen lots and lots of examples and explanations of how the system could go horribly wrong, but no examples or explanations of what the system could add to the game: All that the defenders seem to have to say is "You just hate innovation."

I also wouldn't go so far as to say item durability (as Tim Cain described it) had any potential to be Great. At best it had the potential to be.... No big deal. The caveats were stated: It was a mechanic for normal weapons, Shields and Chest pieces. And nothing else.

 

So It wouldn't be coming into play with Magical gear of any kind (which is what our characters will be using for the vast majority of the game), Not to mention any boots, or any gauntlets, or any helmets (magical or otherwise).

 

I'd say that this is one of those times where we've got message board overreaction, but right now I'm still trying to figure out the two opposing sides of this particular civil war. I swear I've seen the very same people who, a few months ago, voiced very definite disapproval for any crafting system to be in PE now arguing in favor of an Item durability mechanic. Hello? Repairing weapons IS crafting. You're literally having to go use a forge to do blacksmithing work on your arms and armor.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Stun

[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 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.

 

 

Interacting with characters and the world should be one of the harshest challenges presented to the player, if the GM is worth his salt. Changing minds, whether through logical discourse, the presentation of proof or a simple recitation of ones deeds is fine, but i'm afraid to say that I know from past experience that people are not always logical and do not wish to hear the truth. Overcoming an antagonist through the demonstration of a superior philosophy, and highlighting the flaws in his beliefs is a challenge and always should be. If i'm handed these victories then they are cheap and meaningless, I wish to prove myself and stretch my intellect not be a passive observer.

 

Background detail is fine and hopefully if logical adds to the depth of the setting and its players, but that can in no way be considered a game to me. Skyrim is a beautiful landscape, with a rich abundant ecosystem, the benefit of decades of lore behind it and a painstaking attention to detail, but it's not interactive or challenging. The world does not respond to my actions in any meaningful way, and thus whatever headcannon I choose to foist upon the game and the reasoning behind my characters deeds and decisions is pointless. I am not challenged because I have no reward, there is no accomplishment and no achievement to be gained.

 

If I wish to be engaged by the characters and the world, then I can read of them easily enough, I am and always will be a fan of the written word. In a game however I expect challenge, interactivity, reactivity and acknowledgement of my actions. This is the strength of this particular medium in my eyes, and shouldn't be abandoned in favour of faux emotional engagement. Certainly not in Eternity's case, which was Kickstarted with the aim of bringing back the more challenging, content and feature rich games of the past, rather than settling for the streamlined and illogical games of the present, that are touted as being innovative while catering to the most degenerate of players who want simplification to the point of the game playing itself.

 

The mainstream market provides an outlet for these players needs, and there is no need to force these hideous practises upon one of the few sparks of complexity and interactivity that remains in the genre.

[Walsingham]

Hah. When I were a lad we had to get challenges from jars full of pondlife we scooped out of the garden.

 

Seriously though, Nonek. Do you not think you're laying it on a bit bloody thick?

[Nonek]

True, does sound a bit preachy on second glance. Please feel free to dismiss or dissect as one wishes.