Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Lets Talk Item Breakage


Jive
 Share

Recommended Posts

there are too many dumb people to cater to, that want the exact same game as every other ... that they play for a month and quit.

 

You complain about item breakage, but you don't complain about the next expansion to a game where they make all your gear pointless (aka, they just destroyed all your items) and you get to redo it all. It is the exact same thing, people are just not smart enough to see what is actually happening. Supporting the devaluation of gear/your bank roll/your character is somehow better than putting constant wear on it that you actually have visibility of the wear and completely under your control? It is just the opposite in my mind.

 

I'd just like to point out that your post assumes everyone is the same. You assume everyone wants the exact same game as every other and that those same people quit after a month. Isn't it possibly that lots DID want the same game, and CONTINUED playing? Isn't it possible that the people who DON'T care about expansions "breaking" their gear don't mind expansions? Don't assume these are all the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put your gear in storage? How is that fun at all? How is getting awesome looking gear with great stats and then putting them in a bank fun?

 

You people aren't understanding what he meant when he said death was avoidable. Death isn't permanently avoidable, obviously, you will die in this game. What he means is that rate of death is based on player skill. Higher skill level means less deaths, which means less punishment. It gives people incentive to be more careful, to not charge in recklessly, and to get better at the game in general.

 

It isn't fun, was responding to the comment that use/time weren't avoidable. If something isn't worth using a decent chunk of the time due to looks/power, probably not worth keeping around. Having back up gear is one thing, not using gear because of fear of losing it doesn't mesh well with this game design (Risk vs Reward).

 

 

And so what? If a player wants to go attack weaker mobs because they don't ruin his gear, why not let him? He takes no risk of destroying that gear, but he also doesn't gain much of anything because he is taking no risk. Where is the problem here?

 

In that scenario, the player who chooses to do that gets what he wants, and the developers who give him nothing for taking no risk get what they want.

 

Unless mobs provide zero reward of any sort (unlikely) the player would be earning something. Which degrading would play into. If someone wants to mindlessly whack at something for no reason, might as well use rusty weapons and crappy gear.

 

This isn't a PVE game. The point is to participate in the full experience, not hang out in the woods killing bears endlessly. Someone not putting anything in or taking out is not playing the game as intended (from my perspective).

 

As they posted today, usage causes slow/little degrading. Death is the big hit. So if mobs aren't dangerous, not likely gear is going to break in a day of use. Want to whack at rats forever? Have fun, not going to be rewarding nor do damaging to the player. Want to play the game as intended, gear will get busted up and lost, and new gear will be crafted/looted to replace it. One is a member of the economy, one is dead weight.

Edited by Allein

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote my thoughts about this in the suggestion forum-

 

http://community.crowfall.com/index.php?/topic/3710-realistic-durability-degradation/

 

Basically, a couple key points I was pushing for-

 

  • Items shouldn't decay just because you are "in combat", but rather take damage occasionally when hit directly or used to parry
  • Durability hit on death is fair and reasonable
  • Destroy stuff if it hits 0 durability, don't leave it broken & repairable
  • Item damage could be a resource in combat- some spells or special attacks could directly do durability damage, such as an acid spray that eats armor or a "sundering strike" weapon attack designed to break your enemies weapon
  • You could also sacrifice your own item durability for some benefits, for example have an ability where you can completely block a normally fatal blow but it results in your shield shattering, as an idea
Edited by karnos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't fun, was responding to the comment that use/time weren't avoidable. If something isn't worth using a decent chunk of the time due to looks/power, probably not worth keeping around. Having back up gear is one thing, not using gear because of fear of losing it doesn't mesh well with this game design (Risk vs Reward).

 

This is exactly what will happen.  People will hide there good gear for special events and needs never using it and never giving back to the economy (cause it's used only in times of need it's never replaced) because of fear of losing it through normal use.  Now if things only degraded upon death then we would have true risk vs. reward.  I use my best gear and win it's done no damage to me and I don't feel punished for bringing my good stuff.  I bring it and lose well that's the game and now it's gone or looted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that your post assumes everyone is the same. You assume everyone wants the exact same game as every other and that those same people quit after a month. Isn't it possibly that lots DID want the same game, and CONTINUED playing? Isn't it possible that the people who DON'T care about expansions "breaking" their gear don't mind expansions? Don't assume these are all the same people.

 

Yes many are like that as WoW is still going strong despite churning out basically the same game year after year. However, just as many if not more have probably left it one, twice, or completely over time. All good that a game can maintain high numbers, but I can't ignore an equal number of folks leaving as well. Clearly there isn't one way to please everyone and CF is just another option.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what will happen.  People will hide there good gear for special events and needs never using it and never giving back to the economy (cause it's used only in times of need it's never replaced) because of fear of losing it through normal use.  Now if things only degraded upon death then we would have true risk vs. reward.  I use my best gear and win it's done no damage to me and I don't feel punished for bringing my good stuff.  I bring it and lose well that's the game and now it's gone or looted.

I think you're seriously overestimating the impact of item-damage-on-use. (mountain out of a mole-hill)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're seriously overestimating the impact of item-damage-on-use. (mountain out of a mole-hill)

 

I could say you're seriously underestimating the impact of item-damage-on-use and still have a valid argument that gets us nowhere.  What is the merit of having it I can't see any and I've seen it done wrong and it goes very wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly what will happen.  People will hide there good gear for special events and needs never using it and never giving back to the economy (cause it's used only in times of need it's never replaced) because of fear of losing it through normal use.  Now if things only degraded upon death then we would have true risk vs. reward.  I use my best gear and win it's done no damage to me and I don't feel punished for bringing my good stuff.  I bring it and lose well that's the game and now it's gone or looted.

 

I see your point, but you are assuming there is gear that falls into this "good" category that isn't meant for day to day use. Don't believe we've seen enough of the game design to know this yet. If "good" is 3% better then sort of good and 5% hard to buy/craft, not a huge deal. If "good" is 200% better then a lower quality and 500% harder to acquire, ya that would be an issue. Since they are going with a more skill based and less steep vertical power stacking design, I'd hope gear won't make or break a character.

 

Again, we are talking relatively short term experiences. No need to save "good" gear for one key moment unless it is super duper awesome and provides a major advantage worth saving for that moment. Storing away my 5% better gear for a major battle is fine, but I don't see the purpose unless gear is hard to come by.

 

As was said above and as I've pointed out, I don't know what you foresee as the problem with gear degrading. Even going off assumption and not a lot of context, what could happen that would make it so bad? You have to buy another pair of pants once in a while? Or are you assuming the goal is to obtain super leet swords of awesomeness that will make or break our characters?

 

I'm hoping gear is a tool and not what defines us.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say you're seriously underestimating the impact of item-damage-on-use and still have a valid argument that gets us nowhere.  What is the merit of having it I can't see any and I've seen it done wrong and it goes very wrong.

 

What you've seen is a completely different system. I've seen it work fine in another completely different system. Context is everything and unfortunately we don't have a ton.

 

If Firefall is as described previously, it sounds very tedious. Unless ACE decides to go with a similar crappy system, don't see the issue.

 

Doesn't have to be extreme total loss all the time or no loss at all. Lots of room to work with, especially with different systems in place in the campaigns.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could say you're seriously underestimating the impact of item-damage-on-use and still have a valid argument that gets us nowhere.  What is the merit of having it I can't see any and I've seen it done wrong and it goes very wrong.

Damage-on-use provides guaranteed demand for crafter repair services and eventual guaranteed demand for new equipment to replace it, even if one is so awesome that they never die. The point is to create (more) item churn to fuel economic demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you've seen is a completely different system. I've seen it work fine in another completely different system. Context is everything and unfortunately we don't have a ton.

 

If Firefall is as described previously, it sounds very tedious. Unless ACE decides to go with a similar crappy system, don't see the issue.

 

Doesn't have to be extreme total loss all the time or no loss at all. Lots of room to work with, especially with different systems in place in the campaigns.

 

I agree with you I'm not all for total loss or no loss at all.  Firefall just has me very fearful of any game with item decay on use that is permanent.  I don't think it'll happen here but I want to discuss it so the devs can be aware of where and how they can go terribly wrong.  Firefall had a very EVEish crafting system but it was twisted and perverted and the main reason it was a failure was item decay on use.

Damage-on-use provides guaranteed demand for crafter repair services and eventual guaranteed demand for new equipment to replace it, even if one is so awesome that they never die. The point is to create (more) item churn to fuel economic demand.

 

the only demand will be for cheap disposable gear nothing epic will be bought more than once as it will be stored away

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love this to be the case

 

If it isn't, will be a sure sign that the game will have the typical issues that drive people away. When the gear/grind becomes more important then what and how you use them, there is a problem. Looking at character progression (skills) shown, they seem to want to keep the field accessible to all, regardless if brand new or a vet. Clearly more progression will result in more power and what not, but doesn't have to be extreme. Same can and hopefully is applied to gear. "Better" gear that has taken more effort to obtain should be good to have, but shouldn't be the main focus or defining factor of gameplay. This is where they have to find the balance and make sure no one element provides too much advantage.

 

If someone wants to spend a ton of time obtaining the best of the best gear and it actually takes considerable effort, they better be willing/able to defend it and utilize it while they have it. Hanging on to it for a rainy day doesn't sound wise. Nor just walking around the town square showing off. However, with the limited time frame of campaigns, eventually it all comes to an end anyway. The cycle continues with everything going in and out and keeping the game fresh.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you I'm not all for total loss or no loss at all.  Firefall just has me very fearful of any game with item decay on use that is permanent.  I don't think it'll happen here but I want to discuss it so the devs can be aware of where and how they can go terribly wrong.  Firefall had a very EVEish crafting system but it was twisted and perverted and the main reason it was a failure was item decay on use.

 

the only demand will be for cheap disposable gear nothing epic will be bought more than once as it will be stored away

 

CF isn't copying EVE nor FF so hopefully we will be okay. Have to step back and look at games as a sum of the parts and what causes one feature or the whole game to not be enjoyable. I'd assume that FF had more issues then just item decay or at least it wasn't as simple as that (was pointed out earlier). Much like things like fast travel, LFG tools, quest hubs, cross server grouping, etc being in games. In of themselves they might not be terrible, but once you stack them all up and depending on how they are designed, can cause a unchallenging system to appear.

 

Personally, if I am able to obtain "epic" gear, I will use it as much as possible. If I lose it, I'll obtain more if possible. If "epic" gear is so advantageous that I would be at a huge loss without it, the system is broken already. If gear provides that slight edge in an equally skilled matchup, then the person(s) that took the time to obtain it and utilize it deserve the win.

 

If I spend 3 out of 6 months obtaining my super duper sword and it breaks after a week of use, ya I'm going to be upset. But that seems like a pretty silly system for what they have shown. I'd hope that the time to acquire balances out with time to use/break. Risk vs Reward.

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only demand will be for cheap disposable gear nothing epic will be bought more than once as it will be stored away

As others have already posted, you bring out the good stuff for important occasions. I liked the Darkfall example: the guy's "standard" pvp set was 15k, his "siege" set was 200k.

 

You also seem to be stuck on the idea that there even is "epic" gear to be had, rather than just incremental upgrades. ALL resources are supposed to be useful, not just "top tier" ones. The difference will be the types of bonuses granted and probably a small difference in the value of the bonus. 5% vs 3% or something - if you're so worried about damaging or losing that gear, why bother having it? If you can't handle the risk of loss, you don't get the rewards granted from using the better equipment.

 

What's more valuable/important? Keeping your "epic" gear or making sure your castle doesn't burn?

 

I'm going to go back to UO again for an example - I had chests literally full of replacement gear sets. Not "cheap crap" but the best quality that I could afford to make or purchase in enough volume to keep myself equipped on death (because of full loot). I also had sets of really powerful (magic) stuff that was used when the situation called for it.

 

You're so much more likely to lose gear to death/looting than item damage, it's almost a non-factor in the decision of whether or not to use something. But it is a factor in how the total economy functions, which is more important to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're so much more likely to lose gear to death/looting than item damage, it's almost a non-factor in the decision of whether or not to use something. But it is a factor in how the total economy functions, which is more important to the game.

 

first you tell me I'm overestimating the importance of item-decay-on-use now you're telling me it is a factor.  The thing is this statement is right and the likely scenario is that I will lose gear to death so why even have item-decay-on-use.  Thing have evolved since OU and Darkfall did that game even last a few years. Decay-on-use is not good for the game with risk vs. reward more like random decay vs. reward. Also if this game didn't want to be compared to the sandbox king then it wouldn't be "It's like Game of Thrones meets Eve Online" and guess what EVE does not have item decay-on-use.  It's Commerce is booming with gear from the top to the bottom.  So how can EVE have a great economy and no item decay?  Please I'd like to know since that seems to be the only defense for item-decay-on-use that if we didn't have it the world would crumble upon itself and die

Edited by Jive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both statements are true. You are overstating the (personal) effect of item damage and it is a (economic) factor.

 

Since you've now elected to go into extreme hyperbole for your arguments, I think I'm done. Quit clinging to your purplez, sack up, suit up, and go out and fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher level Crafters could also have skills that would add Durability, and higher level crafters could also repair items with less of a lose to an item. There are soooooo many great ideas that can off set the "OMG my urber +1 sword of undead flying monkeys broke"......... and I feel we are in good hands with the team that is putting together this game that its not going to be that big of a deal for most of us.

Edited by thorbeinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that your post assumes everyone is the same. You assume everyone wants the exact same game as every other and that those same people quit after a month. Isn't it possibly that lots DID want the same game, and CONTINUED playing? Isn't it possible that the people who DON'T care about expansions "breaking" their gear don't mind expansions? Don't assume these are all the same people.

That isn't the point. It is the fact that people don't associate the devaluation of their work as "item breakage". When that is exactly what it is. Every expansion to a game I have seen has the devaluation of the time you have already put into the game. As there is always new/better things to go after. Gear in "no item breakage" games is synonymous to games with item breakage. It isn't my fault people are blinded by the hype and newness of expansions to games.

 

I am not talking about all people. I am talking specifically people complaining about item breakage ... please, name me a game that doesn't have item breakage. I can guarantee you there is some form of devaluation of your character through added content. That is how it works.

 

I would rather deal with a constant economy, with parameters under my control, that I can monitor. Rather than be at the whim of the developers release schedule, which is undoubtedly going to make everything up to the point of that expansion a waste of time.

Vidrak - Member of


mael4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both statements are true. You are overstating the (personal) effect of item damage and it is a (economic) factor.

 

Since you've now elected to go into extreme hyperbole for your arguments, I think I'm done. Quit clinging to your purplez, sack up, suit up, and go out and fight.

 

hyperbole is an extreme exaggeration used to make a point since there was no other option its the one I choose.  I really don't think you could prove to me that a game needs item decay considering the only game with a truly massive economy doesn't have it. You clearly never played EVE or you'd realize there's no purplez to be had and the loss of $45000 USD in items happens all the time.  HUGE economy no item decay nothing in the MMO market can compare. if this game wants to be game of thrones with and EVE.  I just don't see item decay-on-use working

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...