Goblin Squad Member
|
On one hand, having your 'signature weapon', much like Artemis Enteri's Claw of Archeron and his Life-Stealing Dagger, or Gandalf's staff, helps bring (I've found at least) a greater sense of ownership in a character by the player.
On the other hand, having a 'decay creep' sink in would be a good method to keep the in-game economy flowing, but at the same point I think weapons and armor breaking and needing repair is a lot less painful for players than "Oh hey your family sword, the one that has been passed down from your Arch-Paladin Great-Great Grandmother, rolled a natural 1 against Rust last night, sorry!"
The other thing to consider is that unlike most MMOs, a system that uses the Pen and Paper method of being able to continously upgrade a weapon to the point it damn near becomes an artefact in and of itself makes keeping a weapon not necessarily a penalty to the economy. You'll still need to find an enchanter able to apply that bonus you are looking for, you'll still need the reagents to perform the imbuing ceremony.
Another angle is that assuming the Skill System doesn't become overly specific at higher levels, damage reductions go into play and weight restrictions apply, players could be rewarded by having multiple weapons on their persons within reason.
Player A is a Wizard-type, runs around casting spells, melting minds and summoning succubi with spiked cod-pieces, etc etc. Player A loves his Staff of Evocation, but after a few near-misses in his travels, has also shelled out for a Staff of Teleportation and several wands, scrolls and magical items that allow him to preserve his prefered daily spells for blasting while still giving him and his adventuring friends options to get the hell out of combat, call in throw-away troops or even deal with certain traps and puzzles. Player A might be able to craft some of these, but not all, and likely relies upon the market to a greater or lesser extent to procure the lion's share of supplies he might not get in dungeon crawls.
Player B belongs to the same group, and is a Fighter type. Mostly a sword-and-board type, and a self-trained smith. Player B learned the hard way that his trusty warhammer doesn't always work, even when enchanted to spit fire and crush the Undead in a single hit, so he's also gone out and made himself some backup weaponry, a Mithril Battle-Axe that bristles with holy lightning, and a Cold Iron Trident that radiates an icy chill. Even with the help of the adventuring group, he's had to go out into the market to get components and bits and pieces to create these 'backup' weapons.
Yeah, making items permanently wear away to nothing is just another barrier to entry for long-term players.I am not sure what you mean by this. The fact that your sword will only last you six months and you will need to find another keeps you from buying the sword?
No, I mean that people will say "What? I worked to get this awesome sword and I want to USE it without it grinding away into nothing! Where's that other game that didn't punish me for using my gear as badly as this one does?"
In other words it's not about buying the sword it's about players saying "screw this" and leaving the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My preference would be to see most items, including magic ones, be breakable...but allow "Artifact" level items to be unbreakable (and perhaps un-loseable as well) but allow a player the ability to own only one "Artifact" level item at any given time.
This helps keep Artifacts rare (as they should be) but allows players to have thier one special signature item that they can't lose. However most of thier gear would be subject to loss and attrition...so it still keeps the economy and crafters rolling.
An imaginary goal that fails miserably in every form of RPG, including the P&P game, and doubly flawed for an MMO that the goal is to keep a flowing economy.
Practically speaking, people will probably go through dozens of weapons over their career, but everyone likes to imagine that they will eventually end up with a legendary weapon that they will cleave through dragons with forever.
Not flawed at all. There are ways to keep the economy flowing other than destroying the gear that people have spent time to gather. Broken and repairable. Fine. Gone forever because you use it? That's a great way to get people to not play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not flawed at all. There are ways to keep the economy flowing other than destroying the gear that people have spent time to gather. Broken and repairable. Fine. Gone forever because you use it? That's a great way to get people to not play.An imaginary goal that fails miserably in every form of RPG, including the P&P game, and doubly flawed for an MMO that the goal is to keep a flowing economy.
Practically speaking, people will probably go through dozens of weapons over their career, but everyone likes to imagine that they will eventually end up with a legendary weapon that they will cleave through dragons with forever.
Perhaps those were the type of players that the game is not intending to draw in the first place?
For example I find games that are designed with the intent that players constantly use potions, scrolls and other "consumables" while playing very annoying... but alot of people seem to enjoy them and there certainly are plenty of those type of games out there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps those were the type of players that the game is not intending to draw in the first place?
The number of different features about which people are continually saying some version of the above is so great that I really wonder if the game you're imagining will have anyone at all still interested in playing it.
Everything that you make more frustrating reduces the size of your potential playerbase. I'm not saying that you should make everything easy. I'm telling you that, "Maybe we just don't want that kind of player," does not justify poor design choices.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps those were the type of players that the game is not intending to draw in the first place?The number of different features about which people are continually saying some version of the above is so great that I really wonder if the game you're imagining will have anyone at all still interested in playing it.
Everything that you make more frustrating reduces the size of your potential playerbase. I'm not saying that you should make everything easy. I'm telling you that, "Maybe we just don't want that kind of player," does not justify poor design choices.
Okay, SB...Saga of Ryzom is a sandbox with unrepairable decay on gear. It also has a complex crafting system that allows you to choose the mats you use in crafting something...and the item gets its stats from those mats. So, you can specifically design gear to last a lot longer, but this normally comes at the cost of decreasing other stats...Yes, it means your uber sword that took two months to craft could break in 6 months of use. I have never heard anyone complain or leave due to this system. It is called balance, want the uber gear, do the uber work...Ryzom has other weaknesses, but this is not one of them.
I don't understand why you are calling any frustrating. There will be those who are frustrated they have to actually play a game to get level and get the epicz, why dont we just start everyone at max level and gear...and the game can be all about respeccing? If we don't, these people might leave...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not flawed at all. There are ways to keep the economy flowing other than destroying the gear that people have spent time to gather. Broken and repairable. Fine. Gone forever because you use it? That's a great way to get people to not play.An imaginary goal that fails miserably in every form of RPG, including the P&P game, and doubly flawed for an MMO that the goal is to keep a flowing economy.
Practically speaking, people will probably go through dozens of weapons over their career, but everyone likes to imagine that they will eventually end up with a legendary weapon that they will cleave through dragons with forever.
Broken and repairable with a cost heavy enough to not allow one to 100% of the time always use the best they have for every situation. A very good ballancing tool, as well as keeping strategy in factor. Actually having to weigh your options. Encoragement to keep working even if you have the best items in the game. In WoW etc... where repairing your gear is a drop in the bucket... once you have the best set in the game, what really is there to work for? There should be situations to Use the best weapons in the game, but there also should be discouragement from using the absolute best items in the game, on things that are hardly a challenge for you. Think about it if you use midlevel gear on midlevel challenges because the rewards for them would not pay off, using midlevel gear the content could still be a challenge for you instead of a tedious chore, it would more or less eliminate the tedious farming, blasting through content that is in no way a challange for you with your current gear. It would give weaker guilds a chance to beat stronger ones, when they use their best, but the higher level ones use their weaker gear due to underestimating the weaker ones.
I'm in favor of the best gear being repairable, but still at a cost, enough to make it prohibitive to use the best gear for mundane tasks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay, SB...Saga of Ryzom is a sandbox with unrepairable decay on gear. It also has a complex crafting system that allows you to choose the mats you use in crafting something...and the item gets its stats from those mats. So, you can specifically design gear to last a lot longer, but this normally comes at the cost of decreasing other stats...Yes, it means your uber sword that took two months to craft could break in 6 months of use. I have never heard anyone complain or leave due to this system. It is called balance, want the uber gear, do the uber work...Ryzom has other weaknesses, but this is not one of them.
They did the "uber work," and they don't want to lose the product of that work. Why would anyone?
I don't understand why you are calling any frustrating.
Losing something that you have worked hard to earn is frustrating when it is less than voluntary.
There will be those who are frustrated they have to actually play a game to get level and get the epicz, why dont we just start everyone at max level and gear...
This isn't the sort of counter-argument you want to use, because it makes your position that of "Who cares if it's frustrating or not?" My position is, "You should care that it's frustrating, and pay heed to when it becomes too frustrating." You're arguing against that. I really don't think you ought to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "working hard" is the game...it is the fun, the reason to play...I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would play games they hate...just for the virtual lootz. I mean, doing something not fun for a reward is a job.
If you don't like the game play involved with getting from point a to point b...don't play.
Perhaps this is the point of all our debates, I play for the game play, you play for the rewards...if the rewards are too hard to get...well, you won't play and presumably this means no one will play. Please explain to me where I am wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "working hard" is the game...it is the fun, the reason to play...I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would play games they hate...just for the virtual lootz. I mean, doing something not fun for a reward is a job.
If you don't like the game play involved with getting from point a to point b...don't play.
That's not what this is about. At all.
It's about deciding how much work is involved in getting from point A to point B. I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.
SB, we are not here trying to discuss absolutes, certainties, and/or requirements. If you have a better idea, don't tease us, share.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "working hard" is the game...it is the fun, the reason to play...I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would play games they hate...just for the virtual lootz. I mean, doing something not fun for a reward is a job.
If you don't like the game play involved with getting from point a to point b...don't play.
That's not what this is about. At all.
It's about deciding how much work is involved in getting from point A to point B. I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.
Which system do you consider better?, Bind on pickup/bind on equip methods? AKA the you throw it in the garbage if you find something better then it shortly afterwards? Every game absolutely has to have a system to destroy the items you worked for, WoW does it through obsolescence, level requirements and ensuring that you cannot pass it on to the next player when you outgrow it. Which makes sense in a WoW sense where everything of worth is going to be through either raids/instances, or PVP, so bind on pickup is the easiest way to prevent, say a complete newbie being decked out and blasting to the top. In this what I think would make the most sense is your skill in X weapons, effects how quickly a weapon deteriorates. IE a master swordsman rarely would ever dent his sword, an amature swordsman would ding it every fight. The strongest swords are more fragile take higher skill to not completely trash them in common use.
The Invincible weapon philosophy basically requires an insane number of tiers of weapons, that continue to get higher and higher on a rapid level, which is also the cause of the gear being 10x more important then your character build and player skills. Having your higher weapons needing to either be replaced, or have costly repairs (I still recommend the 50% of the cost of getting the weapon to begin with).
Basically destroyable weapons prevents the eternal ramp in weapon power that assures that a blind monkey randomly mashing buttons in the best gear, will more or less always beat a skilled focused player in average gear. For a PVP focused game, this is not a good thing, a lower difference in power will allow more skilled more organized players with weaker gear to have reasonable odds when fighting a stronger geared/leveled but less organized group.
I think the issue here is that your aversion to PVP, is preventing you from actually see things in a way that dosn't involve the standard veiwpoint of "High level players always fight high level things, low leveled players always fight low leveled things so a 10,000% difference of power between them is fine". That works in instances, that works in battle grounds, it fails miserably in open PVP and in actual wars.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.SB, we are not here trying to discuss absolutes, certainties, and/or requirements. If you have a better idea, don't tease us, share.
I did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did.I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.SB, we are not here trying to discuss absolutes, certainties, and/or requirements. If you have a better idea, don't tease us, share.
Crafters do repairs, got it...thanks. Should the repairs be limited to those with the skill needed to make the item to begin with or anyone with a level in blacksmith can repair anything metal? And, should these repairs be allowable indefinitely? What about the people who do not know a crafts person yet do not want their stuff to break...how do you reconcile this difficulty with their play style?
Seriously though, I actually think "they" will end up allowing repairs and I think making repairs required to be done by someone with the skill to craft the piece is a good compromise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crafters do repairs, got it...thanks. Should the repairs be limited to those with the skill needed to make the item to begin with or anyone with a level in blacksmith can repair anything metal?
Actually I would be fine with anyone with the requisite skill level in a gear-crafting skill being able to repair all gear, if gear damage works anything like what we've previously seen. I'm not sure what that requisite level would be. Perhaps you gain the ability to repair at 20% of the skill learned, and then at each subsequent 20% your repairs become more effective.
And, should these repairs be allowable indefinitely?
Yes.
What about the people who do not know a crafts person yet do not want their stuff to break...how do you reconcile this difficulty with their play style?
I already talked about this. Using a PC for repairs would be optional - you allow NPCs to repair as well, but PC repairs can repair an item to a greater degree (125% condition, for example) and improve its stats slightly until that item drops back down to below 100% condition.
That way you're not out of luck if you can't find a PC to repair your stuff, but incentive is there to do so if one is available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Crafters do repairs, got it...thanks. Should the repairs be limited to those with the skill needed to make the item to begin with or anyone with a level in blacksmith can repair anything metal?Actually I would be fine with anyone with the requisite skill level in a gear-crafting skill being able to repair all gear, if gear damage works anything like what we've previously seen. I'm not sure what that requisite level would be. Perhaps you gain the ability to repair at 20% of the skill learned, and then at each subsequent 20% your repairs become more effective.
And, should these repairs be allowable indefinitely?Yes.
What about the people who do not know a crafts person yet do not want their stuff to break...how do you reconcile this difficulty with their play style?I already talked about this. Using a PC for repairs would be optional - you allow NPCs to repair as well, but PC repairs can repair an item to a greater degree (125% condition, for example) and improve its stats slightly until that item drops back down to below 100% condition.
That way you're not out of luck if you can't find a PC to repair your stuff, but incentive is there to do so if one is available.
I don't believe many people are against the idea of repairs at all, I haven't heard anyone opposed to the idea of the repairs existing, but costing a good percentage of the materials needed to build the weapon to begin with. IE not WoW's, pocket full of change and you are set. Something more along the lines of, If the weapon took, 30 bars of adamantine, for the weapon, say 2 dragon hearts and 2 spider fangs, and lets say 2 hours to craft.
You can repair it for 15 bars of adamantine, 1 dragon heart, 1 spider fang and 1 hour (now crafters themselves may chose to stock up on these items (by buying them from every adventurer that is willing), and just charge you for the items themselves with a nice profit margin for themselves) Now of course I have no idea if crafting will take time, if it does then the time should be carried into the repair if crafting is instant when you have the materials then there's nothing to carry over.
The key is I don't think it should be as difficult to regain as it is to get it in the first place, but there also needs to be discouragement from endless usage, incentive to not always use the best most expensive item.
Again with the cheap easy instant repair philosophy, what mechanic do you propose to take things out of the economy? Binding + rapid obsolescence?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Please NO gear damage as a norm (meaning only special attacks like sunder can damage gear)! This is where the game should deviate from WoW 100%. The most annoying and painful and useless mechanism to part players with cash I've encountered.
S.
Again I am waiting for someone to propose an alternate mechanic to taking gear out of the economy. If we go with indestructible permanent trade-able gear. How does the second generation of crafters make gear? The first generation of adventurers, handed all of their gear to the second generation of adventurers... so.. the second generation of crafters just has to craft and sell things back to NPCs until they catch up to making the highest level of gear?
Indestructible gear pools, each generation gets handfed from the previous, crafters suffer from overstock to the point where everything made has to be sold at a loss. That plus the excessively fast level progression, is why in WoW, crafting is a money losing task until you get it to max level (and even then until you get a rare recepie).
Here's a list of goals that are achieved by destructable gear that is not easy to repair.
1. Constant demand for new equipment, keeping the economy moving
2. Constant need for resources to continue to replace/repair past weapons/armor
3. Less gear creep, With the need to constantly maintain what you have, you are not endlessly going for the next big thing, which means the gear race is no longer exponentially boosting weapons. A best geared player can be under 50% stronger then a medocre geared player, This actually greatly prevents and reduces the 2 level 85's can easily crush 50 level 50 players. It actually permits the non perfect players to participate on the same events/areas as the big dogs. Yes the best players will be better, but 3-4 average players with good tactics, should be able to have a chance against 1 top dog player as more then just speed bumps.
I am still waiting for someone to give a comparable solution that can do these things, as all 3 of those seem to be a pretty valuable aspect towards the actual goals of a game around running cities/economies with open PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
I don't believe many people are against the idea of repairs at all, I haven't heard anyone opposed to the idea of the repairs existing, but costing a good percentage of the materials needed to build the weapon to begin with. IE not WoW's, pocket full of change and you are set. Something more along the lines of, If the weapon took, 30 bars of adamantine, for the weapon, say 2 dragon hearts and 2 spider fangs, and lets say 2 hours to craft.
You can repair it for 15 bars of adamantine, 1 dragon heart, 1 spider fang and 1 hour (now crafters themselves may chose to stock up on these items (by buying them from every adventurer that is willing), and just charge you for the items themselves with a nice profit margin for themselves) ...
or they could buy/build (decaying) tools that are used for building/repairing. PC repairs would then be nice money/material sink.
tho, i prefer decaying items as well, and not planned obsolesce trough expansions. maybe each time item is repaired it loses on maximum durability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps those were the type of players that the game is not intending to draw in the first place?The number of different features about which people are continually saying some version of the above is so great that I really wonder if the game you're imagining will have anyone at all still interested in playing it.
Everything that you make more frustrating reduces the size of your potential playerbase. I'm not saying that you should make everything easy. I'm telling you that, "Maybe we just don't want that kind of player," does not justify poor design choices.
Is Chess a "poorly designed" game, what about Gary Grisby's War in the East?
Thing is, you keep taking things that you personaly find frustrating and projecting them as being universaly frustrating to the intended audience of the game. You don't seem to accept the idea that others may not find those feature frustrating but important aspects of gameplay that they would enjoy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "working hard" is the game...it is the fun, the reason to play...I guess what I don't understand is why anyone would play games they hate...just for the virtual lootz. I mean, doing something not fun for a reward is a job.
If you don't like the game play involved with getting from point a to point b...don't play.
That's not what this is about. At all.
It's about deciding how much work is involved in getting from point A to point B. I'm telling you that irreparable item decay doesn't really serve a purpose that cannot be served better by a system that doesn't destroy the gear you worked for.
If it's fun then it's not really work...and the more the better. That's what I really see is the problem here... If YOU don't enjoy something...you label it as "work" or "frustration" and seek to eliminate it from a game as a "poor design choice". There is nothing really wrong in that...but then you project your personal preferences out upon everyone and refuse to accept others might have different tastes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't believe many people are against the idea of repairs at all,
Some are, though.
I haven't heard anyone opposed to the idea of the repairs existing, but costing a good percentage of the materials needed to build the weapon to begin with. IE not WoW's, pocket full of change and you are set. Something more along the lines of, If the weapon took, 30 bars of adamantine, for the weapon, say 2 dragon hearts and 2 spider fangs, and lets say 2 hours to craft.
You can repair it for 15 bars of adamantine, 1 dragon heart, 1 spider fang and 1 hour (now crafters themselves may chose to stock up on these items (by buying them from every adventurer that is willing), and just charge you for the items themselves with a nice profit margin for themselves)
Well, okay, first, two hours? What is the player doing during this crafting time? Is he allowed to continue playing his character, even while that character is supposedly crafting an item? Does he have to sit through two hours of a crafting animation playing over and over? Does he have to play a two-hour minigame in order to craft the item?
I mean, how do you imagine incorporating a two-hour crafting time into the game (not to mention a one hour repair time)?
And second, how often are you imagining that gear would need repairs? In many MMORPGs, a good evening's adventuring can require repairs at the end of the night. Obviously your system would require a much longer stretch of time between repairs, so how long are you imagining gear would take to "break"?
Again with the cheap easy instant repair philosophy, what mechanic do you propose to take things out of the economy? Binding + rapid obsolescence?
Binding is a good place to start, as is the ability to sell bound gear to NPCs for some modicum of cash when you want to start using more powerful gear.
Most MMORPGs feature easily a dozen ways in which gold (and other fungible items) are removed from the economy. Is there something wrong with how they do things?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is Chess a "poorly designed" game,
Nope, Chess is pretty good.
what about Gary Grisby's War in the East?
I can't speak from personal opinion, not having played it. But the handful of reviews out there for the game appear generally positive. So no, it's probably not that poorly designed.
Thing is, you keep taking things that you personaly find frustrating
See, here's the thing:
I'm not.
A lot of the things I call frustrating or unpopular or infeasible are things that I personally would probably enjoy, or at the very least be willing to tolerate. But I'm not speaking from my own perspective. I'm speaking from my (very basic and limited) understanding of what the market is looking for, and what people tend to find enjoyable versus what they find unenjoyable.
and projecting them as being universaly frustrating to the intended audience of the game. You don't seem to accept the idea that others may not find those feature frustrating but important aspects of gameplay that they would enjoy.
I accept that there are some people who think they would enjoy those features - and a few who actually would. But, frankly, I don't think that they are a) numerous enough, and b) united enough in their desires to justify catering to their whims at the expense of the game's overall playability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, okay, first, two hours? What is the player doing during this crafting time? Is he allowed to continue playing his character, even while that character is supposedly crafting an item? Does he have to sit through two hours of a crafting animation playing over and over? Does he have to play a two-hour minigame in order to craft the item?
I mean, how do you imagine incorporating a two-hour crafting time into the game (not to mention a one hour repair time)?
Well Primarally if time is a component in crafting, then crafting will more or less be expected to be done overnight, IE a crafter would que up several repairs and several weapons before going to bed, have them done in the morning.
And second, how often are you imagining that gear would need repairs? In many MMORPGs, a good evening's adventuring can require repairs at the end of the night. Obviously your system would require a much longer stretch of time between repairs, so how long are you imagining gear would take to "break"?
No actually I was thinking 1-2 days of use should put the average sword and gear into repairs, or at least the epic very powerful ones. For normal simple day to day things, you won't need or have reason to be pulling out that epic sword, and are better off using much cheaper, mid-level armor that costs 1/10th as much for both purchase and the repair costs. You want to save your big guns to be ready for the major dragons and wars.
Again with the cheap easy instant repair philosophy, what mechanic do you propose to take things out of the economy? Binding + rapid obsolescence?
Binding is a good place to start, as is the ability to sell bound gear to NPCs for some modicum of cash when you want to start using more powerful gear.
Most MMORPGs feature easily a dozen ways in which gold (and other fungible items) are removed from the economy. Is there something wrong with how they do things?
For theme parks absolutely not, it is the right system for that game, if you don't mind crafting being a money losing career for all but the top tier and for an extreme level of power creep to be controlled by making sure high levels and low levels are not competing in the same areas for any reason.
When you are talking city based wars... this is a different system, we are talking mid level players, and high level players and low level players, in the same areas, participating in the same battles. WoW's system would not work well for this. For crafting to be profitable in low and mid levels, WoW's crafting system would not work well for that either.
The WoW infinite skyrocketing power level does not make for a decent world pvp game. If a level 85 character by himself opts to attack a city for level 50's, he can continue indefinitely until other level 85's come, 1v50 = no challenge for the 1, is not appropriate balance for world pvp. So the counter for that, is the uber weapons should 1. not be as uber, you have to continue to work to use them in the situations you truly need them, Which takes time so that you are not always chasing the next big thing.
You have yet to address the issue of power creep? If your best weapon is usable indefinently, then your next goal is just to get the next big weapon, for the economy to keep moving you have to consistently be upgrading, which means, your power level goes up exponentially on a regular basis. How do you fairly put insane continuous massive power leaps, and expect anything close to fair matches in world pvp/wars?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No actually I was thinking 1-2 days of use should put the average sword and gear into repairs, or at least the epic very powerful ones.
That means that you're going to essentially be recrafting your gear every 2-4 days.
That doesn't strike you as sort of crazy?
For normal simple day to day things, you won't need or have reason to be pulling out that epic sword,
I think people are probably going to want to use their strongest gear as often as they're able to, and I think that telling them that they'll go broke if they do that is probably going to make a lot of people very unhappy.
For theme parks absolutely not, it is the right system for that game, if you don't mind crafting being a money losing career for all but the top tier and for an extreme level of power creep to be controlled by making sure high levels and low levels are not competing in the same areas for any reason.
When you are talking city based wars... this is a different system, we are talking mid level players, and high level players and low level players, in the same areas, participating in the same battles. WoW's system would not work well for this. For crafting to be profitable in low and mid levels, WoW's crafting system would not work well for that either.
We're not talking about WoW's crafting system. We're talking about the ways that other MMORPGs remove currency and fungible items from player circulation.
The WoW infinite skyrocketing power level does not make for a decent world pvp game.
Assuming your goal is for players to be able to participate meaningfully in open world PvP at any level, I agree.
You have yet to address the issue of power creep? If your best weapon is usable indefinently, then your next goal is just to get the next big weapon, for the economy to keep moving you have to consistently be upgrading,
Again, why does the economy stagnate if you stop upgrading? We've already discussed how repairs can give crafters something to do on an ongoing basis, similar to how alchemists have ongoing business in other MMORPGs - they provide a product/service that is eventually consumed and must be renewed.
which means, your power level goes up exponentially on a regular basis. How do you fairly put insane continuous massive power leaps,
Who says that power has to increase exponentially, or in massive leaps? I don't think that those are features of any sort of crafting or repair system, and are instead conscious decisions by the developers on how approachable they want certain types of challenges to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No actually I was thinking 1-2 days of use should put the average sword and gear into repairs, or at least the epic very powerful ones.That means that you're going to essentially be recrafting your gear every 2-4 days.
That doesn't strike you as sort of crazy?
No I a sane player would opt not to use his best gear for lesser situations. Much like police don't roll up in a tank, in full body armor with a swat team, to investigate a complaint about the music being too loud, players will not be wearing their absolute best weapons and armor to fend off a batch of wolves at the edge of their town. I think the mentality of extreme overkill would be far better to be toned down.
I do think a nice compromise would be the artifact weapons and armor idea, I think undestroyable weapons, that are more or less in the center of the "disposable" and "for emergencies" power categories, that are extremely hard to get but cannot be destroyed ever. Would be a reasonable system.
Who says that power has to increase exponentially, or in massive leaps? I don't think that those are features of any sort of crafting or repair system, and are instead conscious decisions by the developers on how approachable they want certain types of challenges to be.
Well it does have to go up noticably as nobody would work for a weapon that does 101 when their current weapon does 100 damage, the issue is that when they are permanant and always used, then you've got to always want to be working on the next one, which means there has to be a next one, and a one after that, and after that, and after that, so now we're at 100, then 125, then 150, 175, 200. Where as with difficulty crafting, you can basically slow that creep by 75% because you are working to maintain, have a spare of the weapon in case 2 huge events happen back to back, etc... When you add the protect and maintain step to what you own, it drastically slows down the mad rush forward that cause people to reach their end goal quickly and bore out of the game.
When you encorage players to get by with the weakest possible item that will still do the job, you make simple events challenging and drastically reduce them turning into easy repetitive chores once you have the gear to do them easily.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No I a sane player would opt not to use his best gear for lesser situations.
A rational player, conscious of both the fact that his task (assuming his task involves combat of any sort) will be made easier and more efficient by the use of the best gear possible, as well as the fact that in a world featuring open PvP, wearing the best gear possible makes you more likely to come out on top of any unexpected PvP contest, would by default wear the best gear possible. There's simply no reason not to.
Unless, of course, you make repair costs so high as to make wearing good gear an unattractive option. This strikes me as fiddly, not a terrible amount of fun (since it means you can't show off your awesome gear all the time), and something that doesn't really add much to the play experience.
Much like police don't roll up in a tank, in full body armor with a swat team, to investigate a complaint about the music being too loud,
There are like eight reasons - all of which apply in real life and not necessarily in a video game - that the police have developed appropriate levels of response to various incidents.
players will not be wearing their absolute best weapons and armor to fend off a batch of wolves at the edge of their town. I think the mentality of extreme overkill would be far better to be toned down.
I think that the idea that players with access to anything you would call "extreme overkill" would bother themselves fending off wolves at the edge of town instead of having someone else do it while they instead head off to a dragon's lair to loot its hoard and buy their town some decent walls with the coin is a little far-fetched.
I do think a nice compromise would be the artifact weapons and armor idea, I think undestroyable weapons, that are more or less in the center of the "disposable" and "for emergencies" power categories, that are extremely hard to get but cannot be destroyed ever. Would be a reasonable system.
Wouldn't this cause exactly the problem you're talking about above? People walking outside to fend off wolves with insanely overmatched gear? If you really think that's going to be an issue, this is exactly the sort of thing you should avoid in your game.
Well it does have to go up noticably as nobody would work for a weapon that does 101 when their current weapon does 100 damage,
"Go up noticeably" and "increases exponentially" are not the same thing.
the issue is that when they are permanant and always used, then you've got to always want to be working on the next one, which means there has to be a next one, and a one after that, and after that, and after that, so now we're at 100, then 125, then 150, 175, 200.
Why does there have to be a next one, and a one after that, and after that?
Also, why is that bad?
When you encorage players to get by with the weakest possible item that will still do the job, you make simple events challenging and drastically reduce them turning into easy repetitive chores once you have the gear to do them easily.
Making them harder won't make the tasks any less repetitive. If anything, it will make them more dull, because they will be needlessly prolonged.
Rather than trying to make simple events challenging by introducing a system that requires reforging the entirety of your gear twice a week, why not introduce challenges that are appropriate to both the skill level of the characters and the quality of their accumulated gear?
Oh, and on a final note, if forcing the players to use lesser gear makes tasks go from easy to challenging, doesn't that mean that the gear you're using is having a very large effect on the strength of your character? I thought that was something to be avoided.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, that is a bit more harsh damage than I was thinking...If PCs who can craft an item are the only ones who could repair them, I was thinking easily 3-4 months use on an item before repairs became absolutely necessary (I suppose I would even be game in this system to allow repairs on broken items).
However, I would also say repairing will never bring the item to 100%. Say you loose 5% per repair...this means each time it will last a bit shorter time. Eventually it will no longer be worth using. I think this is a happy medium because you could extend the life of an item to years in this manner.
Also, binding to me is anti-sandbox. While you may convince me to limit efforts on giving players more options for play, you will not convince me to limit the ones that are obviously already there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, that is a bit more harsh damage than I was thinking...If PCs who can craft an item are the only ones who could repair them, I was thinking easily 3-4 months use on an item before repairs became absolutely necessary (I suppose I would even be game in this system to allow repairs on broken items).
However, I would also say repairing will never bring the item to 100%. Say you loose 5% per repair...this means each time it will last a bit shorter time. Eventually it will no longer be worth using. I think this is a happy medium because you could extend the life of an item to years in this manner.
If the purpose of having items that eventually wear out beyond use is to remove items from the in-game economy, doesn't allowing players to keep them for 3+ years kind of defeat that purpose? Pretty much everyone will get rid of their gear long before that due to outgrowing it, not because it's become too worn out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the purpose of having items that eventually wear out beyond use is to remove items from the in-game economy, doesn't allowing players to keep them for 3+ years kind of defeat that purpose? Pretty much everyone will get rid of their gear long before that due to outgrowing it, not because it's become too worn out.Well, that is a bit more harsh damage than I was thinking...If PCs who can craft an item are the only ones who could repair them, I was thinking easily 3-4 months use on an item before repairs became absolutely necessary (I suppose I would even be game in this system to allow repairs on broken items).
However, I would also say repairing will never bring the item to 100%. Say you loose 5% per repair...this means each time it will last a bit shorter time. Eventually it will no longer be worth using. I think this is a happy medium because you could extend the life of an item to years in this manner.
Yes, but it will eventually wear out...I am trying to find a happy medium, a compromise. As I said before, I am all for no repairs...I play an MMO like that now and it works fine. This system would allow expensive repairs and eventually remove the item from game. People who were careful about not grinding with their uber gear could keep it indefinitely.
EDIT: But, normal/average/grind gear on the other hand will not be worth repairing more than a few times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, but it will eventually wear out...I am trying to find a happy medium, a compromise.
I know, I just don't think your suggestion is much of a compromise - it doesn't accomplish the stated purpose of making items wear out, which is to provide a way for things to exit the economy. Mind you, I'm not particularly interested in having items wear out to begin with (nor do I think it's even remotely necessary for the economy to "work"), but that does seem to be the goal that's being put forth by those encouraging item breakage.
You'd have to make the time between repairs much less, or dramatically decrease an item's potential to be repaired after each subsequent repair (much more than 5% at a time). At four months, I'm not sure anyone would ever get anything repaired - I know very few active MMORPG players who spent more than a few months with any given item before trading up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You'd have to make the time between repairs much less, or dramatically decrease an item's potential to be repaired after each subsequent repair (much more than 5% at a time). At four months, I'm not sure anyone would ever get anything repaired - I know very few active MMORPG players who spent more than a few months with any given item before trading up.
Agreed, my initial suggestion was 20%, allowing for 4 repairs with the last only leaving it at 20% (a few weeks use at the previously suggested rate)...but I expected a big pushback from the don't damage my gear crowd, so I played the suggestion safe. It is the dynamic/mechanic that is the important part, Goblinworks can always tweak the rates in beta to make the world to their liking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I know very few active MMORPG players who spent more than a few months with any given item before trading up.
depends on whether new, better items are introduced. EVE players still use (more or less) same items after 7 years. WOW adds new batch each expansion, and it's not unusual to replace several items in each slot every four months.
so, either items break down, and are replaced with same items, or items do not break down and are replaced with better items.
i prefer former as it keeps stats within constant range. every item has purpose. there is no obsolescence. new players have something to do, and something to use. better gear costs more money to buy/repair, but it's not completely overshadowing weak gear that costs less money to buy/repair.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
depends on whether new, better items are introduced. EVE players still use (more or less) same items after 7 years. WOW adds new batch each expansion, and it's not unusual to replace several items in each slot every four months.
Beyond simply the sandbox vs. not-sandbox dichotomy, I think there are some important thematic differences between the two games that make this possible. The corporatist, militaristic, hyper-future approach that EVE takes lends itself to the idea of simply repurchasing destroyed hardware. High fantasy worlds, on the other hand, have much stronger traditions of characters having unique, signature gear, and the appearance/strength of that gear reflecting that character's rise in power.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
depends on whether new, better items are introduced. EVE players still use (more or less) same items after 7 years. WOW adds new batch each expansion, and it's not unusual to replace several items in each slot every four months.Beyond simply the sandbox vs. not-sandbox dichotomy, I think there are some important thematic differences between the two games that make this possible. The corporatist, militaristic, hyper-future approach that EVE takes lends itself to the idea of simply repurchasing destroyed hardware. High fantasy worlds, on the other hand, have much stronger traditions of characters having unique, signature gear, and the appearance/strength of that gear reflecting that character's rise in power.
or, wouldn't it be more appropriate for EVE to have planned obsolescence and arms race of high-tech society? and for fantasy world with fixed technology levels to have static items? a sword is a sword is a sword. it's all point of view.
tho, i'm on for signature gear. it would be quite neat to have have limited "soul-binding", where player chooses single item that makes him stand in the crowd or makes his "build" work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there are some important thematic differences between the two games that make this possible. The corporatist, militaristic, hyper-future approach that EVE takes lends itself to the idea of simply repurchasing destroyed hardware. High fantasy worlds, on the other hand, have much stronger traditions of characters having unique, signature gear, and the appearance/strength of that gear reflecting that character's rise in power.
I would sort of agree with this but only to the because one universe has high fantasy items, and the other does not. Remove those items from the fantasy, and I would say this difference does not exist. If you allowed more uber Jovian artifacts (or some other equally mysterious/powerful items) to be "found" by the general populous in EVE, then I would also say this difference does not exist. Admitting these high fantasy items exist, I would hate to see their existence dictate poor mechanics for everything non-magical (one can be non or even anti-magic in these high magic settings...think Conan for instance).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello guys.
I've just recently heard about Pathfinder, and Pathfinder Online. I have read most of the posts made in this thread, but some of them might have slipped.
These are just some of my thoughts on some of the things discussed here.
I think that decaying items is a must. The decay should only happen when you use the item, naturally. The current condition of the item does not affect the efficiency of the item. Say, a sword is a at 25% durability, and it still does 10 fire damage, just like it did when it was first created.
Now, what I think is interresting is that there should be some kind of a display system available. Like a player owned house, where you can hang your old weapons/armor on display. You can put up your new weapons and armors as well, it's totally up to you. Some kind of a crafter would be able to fit your item permanently onto a holder of some kind, allowing you to still have the weapon on display, but it is useless, in case someone breaks into your house and tries to steal it.
This is just a thought experiment lol.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or, wouldn't it be more appropriate for EVE to have planned obsolescence and arms race of high-tech society? and for fantasy world with fixed technology levels to have static items? a sword is a sword is a sword. it's all point of view.
tho, i'm on for signature gear. it would be quite neat to have have limited "soul-binding", where player chooses single item that makes him stand in the crowd or makes his "build" work.
I also agree, the item decay idea vs persistance is not so much a fantasy vs futuristic concept, but a sandbox vs theme park thing. Ryzom is clearly a fantasy game, and item decay works perfectly well for it. Also you factor in that eve has far more parallels to PFO then WoW etc...
I think that the idea that players with access to anything you would call "extreme overkill" would bother themselves fending off wolves at the edge of town instead of having someone else do it while they instead head off to a dragon's lair to loot its hoard and buy their town some decent walls with the coin is a little far-fetched.
And this is where you are assuming the game is going to be traditional theme park, regular raiding, and repeat the same raid over and over until you are equipped to move on to the next raid. Everything that has been described about the game, implies very little in the ways of raiding, instances etc... I have a feeling that dragons will likely be a rare, hard to accomplish event, that may only come up on a monthly or even less frequent basis. There has been nothing to even imply the existence of the regularly repeatable big boss to hunt down, and much to imply that if it does exist, it will be far from a focus point of the game. The constant regular threat, will be nearby (and possibly even distant kingdoms) as well as bandit players etc... and yes I would expect it to be plausible to go after bandits with average disposable gear, considering numbers + tactics and skill should outweigh gear, and I would imagine the bandits to be even less likely then a kingdom squad to be equipping their best items as they know they are inevitably in for an eventual high defeat.
The focus points I have seen are all on kingdom building, of which I would imagine are events that all members of the kingdom are expected to participate in to some degree. IE just like world PVP, you would expect the lower skilled/geared players to have some degree of participation in fighting off the giant dragons, and the higher geared players to have some degree of participation in cleaning out the much less scary wolves.
Everything you have described is always seeming to be emphasizing tiering off players having high skilled/leveled players at X, mid geared players participating in Y and low geared/equiped players participating in Z. That is a theme park trait that is far less common in sandbox games, and makes much less sense in them, yes the high skilled/geared players will be able to do more, even up to 2-3x more in the same amount of time, but being able to do 1/3rd of what the top players can do, is still a huge difference vs being on the benches or playing a completely different game (note by different game I am meaning the walled off lowbie content, such as the entire leveling process of WoW while your guild is off in whatever the current raid is) until you reach the appropriate level.
Theme park mentality: dozens of small worlds, as you level up in one ride eventually you graduate to the next one, as you leave one world it is now insignificant and no longer of any merit or concern to you. It is a repeated trend of going from the weakest to top of your current tier, to repeat back to the weakest again.
Sandbox mentality: There is one big world of which you are always a part of, as you progress you become a larger part and can influence more at a time.
Wouldn't this cause exactly the problem you're talking about above? People walking outside to fend off wolves with insanely overmatched gear? If you really think that's going to be an issue, this is exactly the sort of thing you should avoid in your game.
When did I ever imply the artifact weapons were extremely strong, I said they were permanent and better then disposables, but far less then the epic items. On a scale I am talking at say, Disposable 100, Unbreakable/artifact 125, epic 150-175.
If the main goal you are after is the bling factor, the artifact weapons can be made to be the shiniest impressive looking, and since they are intended to be the rarest category of weapon, they would hold the status symbol goal you are after.
Why does there have to be a next one, and a one after that, and after that?Also, why is that bad?
I thought I've gone over why it is bad a few dozen times, every straight upgrade increases the variance between the top and low players, resulting in lower players basically sitting on the bench if you put them in the same fight.
Why does there have to be a next? Well if you are already fully decked out in the best of everything, what incentive do you have to work towards anything?
Breakable gear allows the poorer to match the ritcher, for a brief amount of time, the ritcher can do it more often. So for a day, the poor are on even ground, the ritch still have the advantage and reward for their work, by the fact that they can afford these fights more often, but if several weak opponents decide to pool together and overthrow a powerful group, they have a fair chance to do so.
Oh, and on a final note, if forcing the players to use lesser gear makes tasks go from easy to challenging, doesn't that mean that the gear you're using is having a very large effect on the strength of your character? I thought that was something to be avoided.
I have implied up to 1.5-2x power difference Enough that a midgrade player will usually be close to half a high end player. Enough that they can both sanely be fighting the same groups, but the higher player can be more effective at it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darkfall Online, Mortal Online, Ultima Online, Ryzom etc; these are the only current examples of sandbox games in medieval/fantasy settings.
The formula used in themepark games regarding gear being 'constant' and that which is replaced than discarded is something that people are just going to have to get over. The grey/green/blue system is only fitting with a linear gear progression which funnily enough is attached to a linear game progression.
Gear should generally be readily disposable and offer choice. In a majority of the games I referenced, characters would pick a level of gear fitting to the task at hand as it was economical and they would not want to risk more than required should the task be dangerous/risk losing it. Maybe just a set leather if they're going into the woods to hunt animals as the woods can be dangerous; a set of infernal godly plate if they were travelling to slay a dragon in a large and secure group.
Gear in PFO, with the presence of full/partial loot, is not going to be 'epic'. If it is it will not be used in dangerous areas. Gear should offer a marked advantage, checked with the risk of losing it. That's it. If you had the hand of ragnaros then you wouldn't dare risk it regardless; leave it on the mantle. Whats wrong with just swords and armour?
When gear is perishable, it is readily replaced as such an occurrence offers crafters an abundance of demand. I've never played a sandbox where gear wasn't readily available from player crafters.
And finally, perishable items are required should an economy wish to FULLY function. We're not talking a WoW auction house based economy, we're talking about an economy which creates close to EVERYTHING used by players.
I struggle to post on these forums anymore as it seems there is an abundance of NFL supporters and a minority of NBA supporters, yet the football fans are telling the basketball fans how basketball works. Much of what Onishi and KitNyx say I agree with. To the rest of you I suggest that given that the game has been described as a medieval/fantasy sandbox with a player driven economy, consistent with a variation of open PvP and full loot, I would start looking at how that genre of game functions than confusing it with others. Yes I know this genre works in the tens or hundreds of thousands and not the tens of millions of subscribers, but get over that as well. As soon as Ryan or anyone else comes on these forums and starts talking like the game is going to in any way shift towards a themepark/mass market formula then your concerns would become correct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".
There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.
You are comparing a game that has no need for anything resembling a sustainable economy to an MMORPG.
Give me a better system than binding, which more or less in addition to making absolutely no sense, does not work well for non-liniar progression, still involves the constant need to be moving up to the next weapon to have you give anything back to the economy etc... If repairs are cheap and easy than the answer is nothing, a few gold to someone for repairs and other then that they just pool money, or there are 8 or 9 tiers of weapons and they just mass climb them as rapidly as possible and you wind up with players that are nowhere near the same league as each-other.
What other examples can you think of that
1. Keep people feeling the need to progress, craft more etc..
2. Have low mid and high level players meet on the same battlefield and all players have effect on the outcome
3. Not wind up with a mass pool of lower tier weapons that if the population does not continue to double every month, the weapons will not all reach too high of a supply that they cannot be crafted for a profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You clearly aren't fighting enough Vampire barbarians with improved sunder and adamantine greatswords. Or rust monsters if you prefer something less zany. I prefer the zany myself.You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".
There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.
I prefer item destroying monsters to be a rare threat, not a regular annoyance. Besides, at any point that you'd be facing Vampire barbarians you should have access to Make Whole.
Yes, I realize Pathfinder doesn't have a functioning economy. But I still think you can make a functioning economy without serious equipment degradation. Or gear binding for that matter.
As it is, binding only effects maybe .1% of the gear you come across. Far more loot tends to get resold.
Repair costs are either so trivial that they don't materially effect the economy, or they are so crippling that they retard the economy and frustrate the players. It seems to me the answer has to be elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You clearly aren't fighting enough Vampire barbarians with improved sunder and adamantine greatswords. Or rust monsters if you prefer something less zany. I prefer the zany myself.You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".
There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.
I prefer item destroying monsters to be a rare threat, not a regular annoyance. Besides, at any point that you'd be facing Vampire barbarians you should have access to Make Whole.
Yes, I realize Pathfinder doesn't have a functioning economy. But I still think you can make a functioning economy without serious equipment degradation. Or gear binding for that matter.
As it is, binding only effects maybe .1% of the gear you come across. Far more loot tends to get resold.
Repair costs are either so trivial that they don't materially effect the economy, or they are so crippling that they retard the economy and frustrate the players. It seems to me the answer has to be elsewhere.
Then give me a method.
Here's the scenrio, 1,000 players start, crafters provide enough gear to set up the 1,000 initial players, players upgrade to set 2.wave 2 of 1,000 players starts.
How do we encorage and allow the crafters of group 2, to provide gear, when group 1 is getting rid of their outgrown gear? Group 1 just wants to get rid of it, they got their use of it, so they are all selling it below manufacturing cost.
How does craft group 2 make a profit?
I don't mind there being another solution, if you have it put it forward. I like comparing Plan 1. to plan 2. I dislike discussions of "I don't like plan 1, come up with something better".
So far here's the methods, pro's and cons of each
Breaking equipment
Pros:
1. Constant demand for gear to be crafted and constant profits for crafters
2. Fairly stabilized power levels between characters of different gear.
Cons:
1. Lack of wow factor when showing off gear, using the best weapons may not be beneficial in all circumstances.
Binding equipment:
Pros:
1. Continue to show off your best gear
2. More rewarding to have good gear, and more incentive to obtain it.
Cons:
1. either lack of continuous return to economy, or many tiers of weapons needed to keep there being something to work for (which may create an excessive gap in power between high and low players).
2. Players of low level, may wind up super powered if given a high level weapon from the start (IE from a veteran player)
The main difference being you will have thousands of players in the same world with disposable income, versus a dozen at a table top, so whether repairing, auctioning, crafting, or destroying items is available, there will have to be mechanisms in place to control incomes, or more importantly keep players moving forward on the "tread mill". There will be be technical issues on how much a character may own. The trick is not making it a major inconvenience in the daily play of the character. But any of the above features will have detractors.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are several very important advantages for having gear breakable that would help meet the design goals for the type of game PFO is looking to be.
1) It's a good engine to keep the Player Driven economy going. If players are going to be needing to spend money on a regular basis to maintain thier equipment (whether replace or repair) then it's going to create a market for players to provide those services. It keeps money flowing through the game from player to player.
2) It helps keeps inflation (both ITEM and gold) in check. If people need to spend regularly to maintain/replace thier gear and if the level they need to spend is related to the quality of that gear then they aren't going to be able to obtain the huge, ever increasing stockpiles of cash that many MMO's are prone to with long term players. If those stockpiles don't exist then prices for higher end gear won't inflate to exhorbinant rates because no one has the disposable income to pay those prices. Basic economics, the price of goods can't exceed what the market can afford to pay for those goods. This helps keep such good within the price range affordable to new players and in turn reduces the barrier to entry for new players. Is not "Fly what you can afford to lose" a tag-line of successfull EvE players?
3) By it's very nature, it de-emphasizes the importance of "uber-gear" vs player/character skill in combat. That is a good thing for a PvP focused game. If players know they can't rely on "uber-gear" because it can easly be lost, they are not as likely to focus on "uber-gear" acquisition as a central activity of thier play...which means there will be less pressure on the Dev's to indulge the players with a "gear arms race." People tend not to focus as much on things that they know are transient in nature. It also means if the Dev's do mess up and introduce some items that are too powerfull...they won't have to resort to the dreadedly unpopular "item nerf" as those items will naturaly cycle out of existance naturely...they just have to prevent introduction of new ones instead of downgrading the ones already in the game.
4) It helps foster community and faction building...and helps make both more diverse. It makes the game less about the bad-ass guy with the bad-ass sword which is the SOLE focus of so many MMO's. Those guys are still important but they are now also DEPENDANT upon other players to maintain thier peak fighting ability. This creates an important role in the game for other sorts of players. Players that maybe aren't the greatest in direct PvP conflict but are good at crafting now have an important role to play in maintaining the gear that the PvP warriors need. Even new players can play an important role as they can function to supply some of the basic resources that the crafters need in order to do thier jobs. It also gives the "bad-ass" high level combat character a reason to want to protect/support those other players...as without them they won't be able to maintain thier "bad-ass" combat gear.
This web of interwoven dependancies is what makes communities and community building happen...and I would argue why you see such weak communities in many of todays MMO's... because players just aren't dependant on each other very much any more.
5) Dovetailing with the above point. It fits in very well with a game focused on building factions and territory control. Being a strong faction isn't just about having the toughest fighters around... it's about having the economic base to keep those fighters running at peak performance. It makes "beans and bullets" and access to resources hence territory control, a big factor in faction vs faction combat. Controling territory doesn't just devolve into bragging rights over what color flag is flying over some castle or some artificial buff the Dev's build mechanicaly into the "capture the flag" game....it becomes an intrinsic and natural function of whether a faction can support it's
combat capabilties or not.
Look at real world history for an example. The Axis powers undoubtedly had better equipment, more experience and better millitary doctrine for large portions of the War. What they lacked was an economic base to keep thier millitary rolling efficiently over the long term. A great part of thier strategy and ultimate defeat was obtaining access to the resources and fueling and protecting the industries neccesary to keep thier millitaries functioning. A Tiger tank may have been an awesome monster on the battle-field but if you lack the capacity to keep it running...it's no better then a 60-ton paperweight!
You know what I love about my Pathfinder table top game? I've never had to worry about replacing my magic sword because it "wore out".
There are plenty of ways to make a functioning economy without adding depreciation calculus to the game.
You are comparing a game that has no need for anything resembling a sustainable economy to an MMORPG.
Give me a better system than binding, which more or less in addition to making absolutely no sense, does not work well for non-liniar progression, still involves the constant need to be moving up to the next weapon to have you give anything back to the economy etc... If repairs are cheap and easy than the answer is nothing, a few gold to someone for repairs and other then that they just pool money, or there are 8 or 9 tiers of weapons and they just mass climb them as rapidly as possible and you wind up with players that are nowhere near the same league as each-other.
What other examples can you think of that
1. Keep people feeling the need to progress, craft more etc..
2. Have low mid and high level players meet on the same battlefield and all players have effect on the outcome
3. Not wind up with a mass pool of lower tier weapons that if the population does not continue to double every month, the weapons will not all reach too high of a supply that they cannot be crafted for a profit.
Give people a reason to craft items.
1. Outfitting masses of NPCs. I want to raise an army and build a fortress. This can be entirely a PC thing, or it could involve recruiting NPCs to function for much of the army. If I want a larger army, I would be buying the same gear for them that lower level players are. Alternatively, I could outfit them with better gear, competing with mid teir players. This makes end game players interested in early game gear. Have diminishing returns, where at some point it is better to recruit more people with lower gear than higher people. Make the number of people available a limitted resource and commodity, with new introductions controlled by the designers, to make it so that the optimum point of return for the gear level varies slightly over time.2. Gear loss on death. This goes along with easily replaceable gear. Not the best thing IMO, but an option. With frequent enough death, it accomplishes your goal.
Also, you should think about the fact that for a long time WoW Gold was one of the most stable currencies traded on the world market IRL.
Now, that being said I like item wear as a mechanic for the game. Personally, I think it will depend a lot on the crafting mechanics. Long craft times I would think would give longer time needed between repair. Short craft times could have you repairing every day. The frequency of repair should determine how much resources are needed to make the repairs. A set of gear should be arround long enough for you to make at least ~4 times the monetary equivalent of its cost before repairs cost as much as its initial cost. I base this off of other crafting games with decay and how long it has taken me to get frustrated at what seems like no progress.
I do not think that items should have a limitted number of times able to be repaired (look at the My Father's Axe philisophical discussions.) Good items should not have less durability (it should be the other way arround for realism's sake.) Crafting should be the same skill required to repair an object. Repair should take a fraction of the time and resources. It should be significant enough to be noticable. Going below a certain durability should start to give stat penalties to the weapon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then give me a method.
Here's the scenario, 1,000 players start, crafters provide enough gear to set up the 1,000 initial players, players upgrade to set 2.
wave 2 of 1,000 players starts.How do we encourage and allow the crafters of group 2, to provide gear, when group 1 is getting rid of their outgrown gear? Group 1 just wants to get rid of it, they got their use of it, so they are all selling it below manufacturing cost.
How does craft group 2 make a profit?
I don't mind there being another solution, if you have it put it forward. I like comparing Plan 1. to plan 2. I dislike discussions of "I don't like plan 1, come up with something better".
First off, I don't think degrading items is really going to have the effect you are looking for. Either items are utterly destroyed regularly, which is Eve's primary method, or item's are trivially easy to repair. Somewhere in the middle is just going to be annoying to the players and drive people from the game, with not enough economical benefit.
In a game like WoW, binding equipment doesn't really pull stuff out of the economy except at the very highest tier of gear. So Group 1 is selling their level X drops because they already have an item of level X+1. The crafter is mostly just making gear for himself for many, many levels until they reach the super high tier. So that doesn't really work for a player driven economy.
So first off, I like Scott's idea that a PC crafter can put a gear up to 125%. That makes the trivial repair cost from an NPC not a big deal, but gives the PC crafters something to do.
Second, how about if crafters can break down items into raw materials. So if a thousand longswords are dumped on the market at below market value, Group 2 can buy them up, smelt them down, and use them to craft the items that are actually in demand for the market.
Third, a crafter should be able to improve an item. Why bother selling your longsword for cheap and buying a whole new +1 longsword, when it is cheaper for the crafter to "enhance" the blade instead? Then those resources that are being recycled from crap dumped on the market can be channeled into a used item.
All it takes for a functioning economy is fluid opportunities for transactions. I don't have all the answers, but there have to be a lot more creative things people can be spending their gold on than repairing gear all the time.