LOL, Durability has been removed

[Walsingham]

Perhaps if you boiled it down a bit?

[TrashMan]

 

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."

 

 

...

 

What?

 

Whut?

 

This... makes so little sense.. I don't even...

 

 

WHAT?

[Gfted1]

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.

Like everything, it depends on which side of the fence you stand. Some of the same people that were high-fiving the removal of boobplate are now rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth while Western civilization crumbles over durability.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

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.

Like everything, it depends on which side of the fence you stand. Some of the same people that were high-fiving the removal of boobplate are now rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth while Western civilization crumbles over durability.

In this day and age releasing a game without boobplate is more risky than piling the boobs on the plate and rubbing the player's face in it.

[Hassat Hunter]

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!"

How does the saying go;

You can model a turd all you want, it remains a turd.

Instead of indeed, point out ways to fix the solution to be 'better', I took the approach of instead looking at ways to FIX THE PROBLEM.

It's a very daunting concept to be sure. Durability was only in to fix economy issues. So in order to resolve those other solutions where presented.

It's a much more effective solution than tweaking a solution for a problem that's proven to be problematic to be less so.

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"?

*sigh*

Okay, since this is so hard... let me hear if you can tell the difference here;

* Repair (money), not repair (penalty).

* Rest (stuff happens), don't rest (stuff moves on, but hey, guess what, no penalty. Well until you wait too long and get fatigued that is)

* Potion? Which do you want? Healing, armor, attack, fire, resistance? And guess what again, not penalitised for not doing it.

 

There's a big difference between a binary choice where A and B are both valuable options, and you have to make decisions. But with repair the binary choice is basically A is good, B is bad. That's... not much of a choice.

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

Replacing your weapon with the very next one you find doesn't sosund strategic to me. Besides, if it's like BG you already cary plenty of weapons to combat various opponents. Is it REALLY a good idea to triplify that amount?

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

You're such a good argumentist. Those who have different opions are retards, light in their head, stupid. Yup, way to sway people to your view, by being an ass. :/

[mstark]

Looks to me like, in between the attacks, neither of you are wrong. It all depends on how the system would have been designed, and what role it would have played. It could either have been a simple click-to-repair every time you return to town, a functional money sink but in essence boring. Not a choice. It could also have been designed to be a meaningful venture, think Dead Island, which was more or less all about scavenging any items you could get your hands on and putting them together in useful ways, because they degrade so quickly.

 

I'm thinking it was the first option out of the two, which is why they chose to remove it. There wasn't enough time or budget available to flesh it out to something larger. Point is, we don't know now, and likely never will.

[Micamo]

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.

The thing is, conversation and argument is not a challenge. Not in the same way a combat encounter is, anyway. There are roleplaying systems that try to turn it into one through more complicated social interaction mechanics, but in my experience they don't really work out all that well. The problem is "how do we make conversation just as engaging as combat" is a wrong question.

 

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.

Believe it or not, this mindset is very much the mainstream one: Experimental games that defy it like Proteus or Dear Esther get shouted down by CoD-ites and Grognards alike, and it's part of the problem. Insisting that the feeling of overcoming a challenge and winning is the only thing that makes a game worth playing is like insisting power metal is the only type of music worth listening to: Power metal is great, but by refusing to even consider anything else you're shutting yourself off from an entire galaxy of possibilities.

[JFSOCC]

The thing is, conversation and argument is not a challenge. Not in the same way a combat encounter is, anyway. There are roleplaying systems that try to turn it into one through more complicated social interaction mechanics, but in my experience they don't really work out all that well. The problem is "how do we make conversation just as engaging as combat" is a wrong question.

We simulate internet forums in-game. I guarantee you it is quite challenging to win an argument on an internet forum. But fun if you manage.

[Nonek]

 

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.

The thing is, conversation and argument is not a challenge. Not in the same way a combat encounter is, anyway. There are roleplaying systems that try to turn it into one through more complicated social interaction mechanics, but in my experience they don't really work out all that well. The problem is "how do we make conversation just as engaging as combat" is a wrong question.

 

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.

Believe it or not, this mindset is very much the mainstream one: Experimental games that defy it like Proteus or Dear Esther get shouted down by CoD-ites and Grognards alike, and it's part of the problem. Insisting that the feeling of overcoming a challenge and winning is the only thing that makes a game worth playing is like insisting power metal is the only type of music worth listening to: Power metal is great, but by refusing to even consider anything else you're shutting yourself off from an entire galaxy of possibilities.

 

 

I totally disagree, conversation can be a challenge. Asking the right questions at the right time, doing ones research on the subject, uncovering secrets that pertain to the situation, performing deeds that sway the other party, etcetera. All of these can easily be implemented, rather just arbitrarily dismiss whole portions of the game because a single individual chooses not to like them. The dialogue battles of Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alpha Protocol and many old school rpg's spring to mind, where numerous variables are taken onto account not just a story being told rather than shown.

 

As for my mindset being the mainstream one, I once again respectfully disagree. Dear Esther isn't  a game, it has no interactive opportunities, it simply offers an experience and it will not change despite anything you do. Feature stripping and content deprivation is not innovative, it's been occuring for the past twenty years, and these virtual picture books are the very nadir of that steady decline in quality and interactivity. They are not innovative, because they have no features. There are no possibilities explored in them, just the same story told to every player. To embrace them is to harm the medium, and excuse the developers from creating anything with complexity, choice, consequence or creativity.

 

Sorry to sound so passionate on the subject, but I do not want any aspect of these graphical picture books to taint this kickstarter. The whole industry is moving towards these streamlined "emotional" games, obviously because there's miuch less work involved in making them, but Project Eternity was pitched as an escape from this modern fascination with accessibility and simplification.

 

The milky way is still out there, not watching Dear Esther play itself will not make it disappear.

[TrashMan]

 

How does the saying go;

You can model a turd all you want, it remains a turd.

Instead of indeed, point out ways to fix the solution to be 'better', I took the approach of instead looking at ways to FIX THE PROBLEM.

It's a very daunting concept to be sure. Durability was only in to fix economy issues. So in order to resolve those other solutions where presented.

It's a much more effective solution than tweaking a solution for a problem that's proven to be problematic to be less so.

 

 

Only a turd in your eyes. Which allso happen to be smeared in turd. Hence why you only see turd.

I don't care why durabiltiy was initially introduced. As a mechanic it offers more.

Things have mroe that one purpose or reason to be there.

 

 

 

 

*sigh*

Okay, since this is so hard... let me hear if you can tell the difference here;

* Repair (money), not repair (penalty).

* Rest (stuff happens), don't rest (stuff moves on, but hey, guess what, no penalty. Well until you wait too long and get fatigued that is)

* Potion? Which do you want? Healing, armor, attack, fire, resistance? And guess what again, not penalitised for not doing it.

 

There's a big difference between a binary choice where A and B are both valuable options, and you have to make decisions. But with repair the binary choice is basically A is good, B is bad. That's... not much of a choice.

 

Binary to you. I disagree.

 

Potions? There's always 1 or 2 that are always a better investment. Thus no choice there. Get a good potion or don't. Binary.

 

Rest? Excuse me, but have you forgotten about fatigue penalty? Binary.

 

Except NONE of that is binary, since no system exists in isolation. They work in tandem.

Money is a resource and it has to be spread around.

Thus the calculation isn't as simple as you want it to be.

 

I have 100 gold. What do  Ispend it on? I can't get everything. So what do I prioritize?

Inn? Potion? New sword? Repair of old one? Where is the binary choice there?

There isn't one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Replacing your weapon with the very next one you find doesn't sosund strategic to me. Besides, if it's like BG you already cary plenty of weapons to combat various opponents. Is it REALLY a good idea to triplify that amount?

 

Triplify? Why woudl you triplify?

 

Oh, wait, is this the "weapons will break every 5 minutes so yo uhave to carry a dozen of them" strawman?

 

 

 

 

 

You're such a good argumentist. Those who have different opions are retards, light in their head, stupid. Yup, way to sway people to your view, by being an ass. :/

 

Only towards people worthy of the title(s).

 

So far you have proven to be nothing but close-minded, so I'm not inclined to think of you otherwise. I'd like you to prove me wrong tough. I really would.

I'd rather respect you then feel sorry for you.

[Infinitron]

 

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.

 

This is like saying "Oh my, I won't have to visit a rest spot every 10 minutes and click the "rest" button. I miss it already, it's so much fun having to click that button. Click, click, click. OH, THE COMPLEXITY."

 

You're making an unwarranted assumption here that the game would have allowed and encouraged that kind of gameplay.

 

 

No response, Hassat?

[mcmanusaur]

The thing is, conversation and argument is not a challenge. Not in the same way a combat encounter is, anyway. There are roleplaying systems that try to turn it into one through more complicated social interaction mechanics, but in my experience they don't really work out all that well. The problem is "how do we make conversation just as engaging as combat" is a wrong question.

Hopefully I'm not taking your argument to far out of context, but I must disagree. In so much as role-playing is a form of simulation, formal systems and computers may be worse at simulating human interactions than they are at simulating weapon physics (though in fact hardly any RPGs do this), but that doesn't mean we should give up on other aspects of roleplaying games besides combat. For me, the issue is often that computer RPGs tend to feel beholden to their tabletop roots, which leads them to adopt very simplistic mechanics in the interest of facilitating gamist approaches. I personally believe that all of the challenges that real people face on a regular basis (other than perhaps romance) can eventually be simulated in an engaging manner, as long as we accept that they may remain more abstract and open-ended, and thus incapable of being "gamed" in the same way that combat encounters are. For me there is no good reason why combat should be considered more engaging than other RPG endeavors (unless you consider channeling aggression a valid design consideration).

Edited July 9, 2013 by mcmanusaur

[Karkarov]

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.

True but I will point out one thing.  Baldur's Gate, like all infinity engine games, is based on D&D rules.  D&D had no rules for durability, your sword was either broken, or it wasn't.  Also like you said, only non magic weapons could break.  Meanwhile in D&D stock rules.... magic weapons can't break by normal means either.  They were just following stock D&D.

 

Durability when done correctly isn't a chore, and now weapon crafting is just nonsensical.  Why can I craft a bad ass adamantite suit of plate?  I am not a trained smith, I haven't practiced, are you telling me any idiot with a instruction manual, some ore, and a forge can just make whatever?

 

If you just can't handle durability for some reason, whatever, but crafting should not have been taken out as a skill.

[Lephys]

It's amazing to me how adamant some people are about justifying their "I just don't even want to bother with something I happen to not like, because I happen to not like it" attitude.

 

Really. "Yay, no one's going to attempt to do ANYTHING good with a durability mechanic, because the very idea of that effort upsets me, even if I'm not the one having to make it!"

 

Then, some of us are all "Well, it's not like there aren't ways to make it better. What if we tried to make it better?"

 

And, somehow, that's antagonizing. "OMG! Are you suggesting that my denial of possibility is somehow INCORRECT?! Like... like possibility EXISTS?! HOW DARE YOU EXPLORE POSSIBILITY!"

 

Yup. Totally unreasonable, the exploration of possibility. We should all just stick to the ultra-reasonable assumption that the best possible course of action for any in-development design decision that some people don't like is to just scrap it, and IMMEDIATELY wash our hands of it. And heaven forbid anyone suggest that we still continue considering it. I mean, it's not like we can just let that go on in a discussion forum. Nope. We've got to jump in and try to SHUT THAT CRAP DOWN, STAT!

 

So, seriously people. Stop trying to discuss durability in a discussion forum! It's wrong, and it physically harms other people who would rather not HAVE to read about possibilities and are somehow forced to post in regards to them, only to tell you how ridiculous it is that you're discussing possibilities, the exploration of which is considered to be quite a chore for others.

 

WHAT ARE WE THINKING?! O_O

[Micamo]

Durability when done correctly isn't a chore, and now weapon crafting is just nonsensical.  Why can I craft a bad ass adamantite suit of plate?  I am not a trained smith, I haven't practiced, are you telling me any idiot with a instruction manual, some ore, and a forge can just make whatever?

Yes, as far as the abstraction of the game mechanics is concerned.

[Lephys]

 

Durability when done correctly isn't a chore, and now weapon crafting is just nonsensical.  Why can I craft a bad ass adamantite suit of plate?  I am not a trained smith, I haven't practiced, are you telling me any idiot with a instruction manual, some ore, and a forge can just make whatever?

Yes, as far as the abstraction of the game mechanics is concerned.

 

Your character doesn't start as a fetus. He/she starts as an adult person. Obviously he hasn't been "adventuring" since the fetal stage, but he/she's been doing SOMEthing up until the present. That's a lot of time to learn things.

 

A year-or-two of blacksmith apprenticeship will have you able to produce weapons and armor. Also, who says the game is obviously going to allow your character to become a master smith?

 

I haven't even studied engineering intensely, but I bet I can build a shed out of wood that won't fall over. Does that mean a professional carpenter/builder can't make something 17 times better/sturdier/more efficient than I can? No. Does his ability to make such a thing mean that someone else can't even assemble pieces of wood together into some sort of free-standing construct that functions on some basic level? Nope.

 

Oh, wait, I forgot. If we put something in P:E, it's GOT to directly model an existing implementation from another game. Drat... Darn that unwritten rule!!! *fist shake*

 

And, as Micamo said, the whole time thing is already abstracted. Why doesn't healing take you 3 weeks of sleeping, in-game? Abstraction.

 

So, yes, you could improve your smithing skill at an abstractly faster-than-real-life rate, and STILL be a novice/amateur relative to master smiths.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Lephys

[Stun]

Also we know next to nothing about the soul-mechanics in this game. Crafting knowledge could very well be tied to it.

[khango]

Evidently the other thread got forked into this thread so I now have to repost content here for no good reason...

 

 

(self quoting to repost)

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Edited July 10, 2013 by khango

[Hassat Hunter]

This is like saying "Oh my, I won't have to visit a rest spot every 10 minutes and click the "rest" button. I miss it already, it's so much fun having to click that button. Click, click, click. OH, THE COMPLEXITY."

 

You're making an unwarranted assumption here that the game would have allowed and encouraged that kind of gameplay.

 

No response, Hassat?

I didn't really, no, but since you are seemingly asking for one, let me answer that request

 

The difference here being that while rest spamming indeed was never encouraged, the way this system worked it was very indeed encouraged to repair often or risk a penalty. Not once a day not to be fatigued by resting, but way more often, and a gold cost.

Also resting had more mechanical reasons behind it, like being tied in to spells being restored, time elapsing and an effect after traveling than being a mere 'money sink.' If there were better reasons given by the development team to include it, sure, but there weren't. So then I am not going to assume they *had* such better reasons but just chose not to give them to us like some of you assume was apparently the case.

 

You can improve upon it all you want, but if the underlying reason for EXISTING never changed, indeed, what's the point?

Only a turd in your eyes. Which allso happen to be smeared in turd. Hence why you only see turd.

WAAAAAaaaaaay to miss the point. Not that I'm suprised mind you.

 

So, since methaphors are too hard, let me try it this way.

"Sometimes you add something. You spend a lot of time in it. You fine-craft it, improve upon it. But in the end, it doesn't add anything. Or it simply doesn't work. Thus, it gets taken out instead."

This happens frequently in game development. Or any development. And it's actually a good thing. Rather than keeping non-working things around just because time is spend on them, just because they were in to test but found not working, that only makes games worse.

I've had plenty of times working on mods that I spend a lot of time on something. But in the end, it never made the final product. Why? Cause it didn't work for the game, or it would just make it worse, or served no purpose at all.

Clinging very hard to things that simply don't work is not fitting for a professional game developer.

 

In this case, the OE-team seen that this moneysink wasn't the proper way to deal with "the problem" (too much money), and instead devised to either list it as non-issue (which it pretty much is) or devise other ways to spend your money on. The time they could spend modifyind durability might now go to adding things to the stronghold. Adding items to shops to buy. Adding bribing options to NPC dialogue with custom responses and different endings due to that. Do you really want they rather not do that and spend all that dev-time refining this moneysink?

Things have mroe that one purpose or reason to be there.

Yup. But in this case, it really only had one purpose. They said so themselves. So while "things" may have this addition OE made didn't have more, it had one purpose. A bad purpose. Swim around that all you want, but that's the only reason they made it anyway. They officially confirmed that even. So trying to make a point or sound like it's not is a wasted effort.

Potions? There's always 1 or 2 that are always a better investment. Thus no choice there. Get a good potion or don't. Binary.

Good show telling me "you dismiss this based on past game experiences. That's bad. Feel bad about yourself" and then here go 'in games there are only always 1 or 2 potions. PE wont change that'... make up your mind. And don't go calling me off on using past experiences if you yourself are incapable of seeing past that.

Maybe then you realise, well, perhaps in PE there will be more different useful potions. Think about it.

I have 100 gold. What do  Ispend it on? I can't get everything. So what do I prioritize?

Inn? Potion? New sword? Repair of old one? Where is the binary choice there?

There isn't one.

There are indeed many choices how to spend your gold. But of all those listed, only one penaltilised you for not doing it.

Going for the inn? No, then no penalty.

Going for the new sword/potion? No, then no penalty.

Going for repair? No? Then penalty for you.

 

See the difference?

Oh, wait, is this the "weapons will break every 5 minutes so yo uhave to carry a dozen of them" strawman?

Woohoo, again, not my viewpoint. The viewpoint of your own 'followers' who think durability really can add to the dungeons danger and needing to require additional weaponry onboard. I would never suggest such a severe penalty. But one point they do have right, if it wants to have a very practical impace on gameplay then merely 'deposit gold here' it DOES need to decay *that* fast. If it doesn't, no practical impact. If it does, practical impact but in that same manor the impact is so great, it will turn off a lot of people since it requires constant repair and/or replacement.

 

You simply can't have an EFFECTIVE impact on gameplay as some believers think it will add to the game without making weapons as fragile as porcelain. If they are as resistant as you want the system to be, it simply will have naught impact on the gameplay. Just... taking money.

Does that add something? I say no. And thus I see no reason to devote manpower to it. Work on something that affects gameplay. If you need a moneysink, adds something that actually affects gameplay.

 

And if you still read all of the above as "I hate durability and that's why it must not exist in the game. And my only argumentation is I hate it" then sorry, but I am done talking to you.

 

Also I do find the argument funny about the crafting skill. It makes no sense crafting elite weapon not having crafting skill, but if your crafting skill is 10 it suddenly makes perfect sense? Even if that crafting skill is trained murdering 2000 orcs instead of actual crafting? Hilarious.

Crafting still uses other skills, ingredients, recepices and who-knows-what-else. It's not suddenly that without a crafting skill present you can make the epic endgame item at the forge when you start the game as some people make it appear.

[jethro]

Yup. But in this case, it really only had one purpose. They said so themselves. So while "things" may have this addition OE made didn't have more, it had one purpose. A bad purpose. Swim around that all you want, but that's the only reason they made it anyway. They officially confirmed that even. So trying to make a point or sound like it's not is a wasted effort.

 

For Obsidian it had two. 1) money sink 2) incentive for all party members to take crafting skill

Edited July 11, 2013 by jethro

[Lephys]

Hassat Hunter... I'm failing to comprehend the relevancy of your "point," here.

 

"Some things just suck no matter what, and that's why durability is one of these things."

 

That's just a simple unfounded claim, arbitrarily made more elaborate with a turd metaphor.

 

Failure to do something in no way proves its impossibility. Nor does it somehow verify that the very substance you're working with is simply refuse.

 

Look how many times people failed to make an aircraft, sometimes using the very same materials from whence viable aircraft were eventually constructed.

 

Maybe no one's going to come up with a viable-enough-for-everyone's-tastes durability system in time for it to even go into P:E, or maybe Obsidian simply sticks to the durability-less design despite a quality system being devised.

 

Either way, your desire to give up on the representation of dynamic equipment quality in an RPG like this in no way begets the inherent crappiness of any and all attempts at such a representation.

 

No one here is throwing diamond metaphors at you, are they? "Sometimes, no matter what you do to something, it's just super awesome and sparkly and valuable, because it's a diamond." No. That would be equally as silly. Obviously you can produce a durability system that's crap, and you can also produce one that's good. Even if it's still not a fit for a given game, it doesn't make it crap.

 

It still baffles me that people in a forum specifically set up for discussion are so adamant about trying to arbitrarily shut down discussions that they just subjectively don't feel are worth carrying on.

[Oerwinde]

I've always found item durability to be inconsequential at best, annoying at worst. It almost never adds to the game. Good riddance.

[Micamo]

Don't Starve does a pretty good job at it: For the most part, items that degrade are items that require non-renewable components to craft.

 

Take the example of Flint, which is required for basically every tool you use for collecting stuff: Flint never ever comes back once you pick it up, to get more, you have to go explore a new part of the map and hope you find some. This limits the amount of time you can spend in a safe area camping the renewables: Eventually, you'll run out of flint and need more. It's only one of many systems used to encourage a healthy amount of exploration of the map instead of falling into a routine.

[TrashMan]

 

So, since methaphors are too hard, let me try it this way.

"Sometimes you add something. You spend a lot of time in it. You fine-craft it, improve upon it. But in the end, it doesn't add anything. Or it simply doesn't work. Thus, it gets taken out instead."

This happens frequently in game development. Or any development. And it's actually a good thing. Rather than keeping non-working things around just because time is spend on them, just because they were in to test but found not working, that only makes games worse.

I've had plenty of times working on mods that I spend a lot of time on something. But in the end, it never made the final product. Why? Cause it didn't work for the game, or it would just make it worse, or served no purpose at all.

Clinging very hard to things that simply don't work is not fitting for a professional game developer.

 

In this case, the OE-team seen that this moneysink wasn't the proper way to deal with "the problem" (too much money), and instead devised to either list it as non-issue (which it pretty much is) or devise other ways to spend your money on. The time they could spend modifyind durability might now go to adding things to the stronghold. Adding items to shops to buy. Adding bribing options to NPC dialogue with custom responses and different endings due to that. Do you really want they rather not do that and spend all that dev-time refining this moneysink?

 

MEh. I worked on mods too. And on actual games. You say it doesnt' work, I say you're wrong.

 

Stronghold? I don't care about it. More items? I was against too much loot to beign with. So really..the "more resources to add to other stuff" argument is wasted. I'm well aware of it. And I'm also well aware of the fact that often times adding mroe of X is worse than adding Y.

So to answer your question - yes, I really want them to spend time on this "money sink"

 

 

 

 

Yup. But in this case, it really only had one purpose. They said so themselves. So while "things" may have this addition OE made didn't have more, it had one purpose. A bad purpose. Swim around that all you want, but that's the only reason they made it anyway. They officially confirmed that even. So trying to make a point or sound like it's not is a wasted effort.

 

So what? There is more than one purpose even if they stated or started with one.

The potential is there, wether you like it or not.

 

 

 

 

Good show telling me "you dismiss this based on past game experiences. That's bad. Feel bad about yourself" and then here go 'in games there are only always 1 or 2 potions. PE wont change that'... make up your mind. And don't go calling me off on using past experiences if you yourself are incapable of seeing past that.

 

Maybe then you realise, well, perhaps in PE there will be more different useful potions. Think about it.

 

Blind to sarcasm I see?

In case you missed it, I'm DELIBERATLY usign your kind of reasoning - in this case a blanket dismissal using past experience as a blank check to do it.

 

Then maybe you realise PE might have a better durabiltiy mechanic than you've seen before.

 

 

 

There are indeed many choices how to spend your gold. But of all those listed, only one penaltilised you for not doing it.

Going for the inn? No, then no penalty.

Going for the new sword/potion? No, then no penalty.

Going for repair? No? Then penalty for you.

 

See the difference?

 

You are wrong. There is a penalty. You are just to blind to notice it.

Not sleeping is not a penalty? Since when?

Not healing is not a penalty in battle?

Not buffing is not a penalty in battle?

A lesser sword is not a penalty?

 

 

 

Woohoo, again, not my viewpoint. The viewpoint of your own 'followers' who think durability really can add to the dungeons danger and needing to require additional weaponry onboard. I would never suggest such a severe penalty. But one point they do have right, if it wants to have a very practical impace on gameplay then merely 'deposit gold here' it DOES need to decay *that* fast.

 

No, it doesn't. Period.

 

[teknoman2]

 

 

Durability when done correctly isn't a chore, and now weapon crafting is just nonsensical.  Why can I craft a bad ass adamantite suit of plate?  I am not a trained smith, I haven't practiced, are you telling me any idiot with a instruction manual, some ore, and a forge can just make whatever?

Yes, as far as the abstraction of the game mechanics is concerned.

 

Your character doesn't start as a fetus. He/she starts as an adult person. Obviously he hasn't been "adventuring" since the fetal stage, but he/she's been doing SOMEthing up until the present. That's a lot of time to learn things.

 

A year-or-two of blacksmith apprenticeship will have you able to produce weapons and armor. Also, who says the game is obviously going to allow your character to become a master smith?

 

I haven't even studied engineering intensely, but I bet I can build a shed out of wood that won't fall over. Does that mean a professional carpenter/builder can't make something 17 times better/sturdier/more efficient than I can? No. Does his ability to make such a thing mean that someone else can't even assemble pieces of wood together into some sort of free-standing construct that functions on some basic level? Nope.

 

Oh, wait, I forgot. If we put something in P:E, it's GOT to directly model an existing implementation from another game. Drat... Darn that unwritten rule!!! *fist shake*

 

And, as Micamo said, the whole time thing is already abstracted. Why doesn't healing take you 3 weeks of sleeping, in-game? Abstraction.

 

So, yes, you could improve your smithing skill at an abstractly faster-than-real-life rate, and STILL be a novice/amateur relative to master smiths.

 

to put it simply, real life smithing is like this

i know how to bang the metal and shape it into a sword

i know how to handle iron, steel, titanium, mithril, adamantite and alchemical silver

i can turn any of the above metals into a sword.