| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading a lot of the discussions held on MMO economics and crafting here on the forums. I want to share the (extremely positive) experience I had in another MMO where a crafter was a class of its own:
Ragnarok Online
I played RO in its early years. I played the international localization between 2002 and 2004, and witnessed one of the most stable economies I have ever seen in an MMO.
First off, the Blacksmith class. Blacksmiths had two sides to them: crafting and combat. To level your Blacksmith, you needed to invest permanent attribute points into combat stats and skills. However, as a crafter, your success rate was influenced by your lesser stats (dex and luck). So the player could level a Blacksmith relatively easily and cheaply by going the combat route, but the trade off would be that they would have a lower success rate on crafting than someone who leveled as a pure forger. It typically took a guild effort to level a blacksmith to a high level on pure crafting stats.
Although PFO uses a completely different skill system, I find common ground in the way players will skill up their craft; do they devote ALL of their skills into crafting? or do they deviate to give their character the ability to do other things like fight and have more utility? The latter being the easier route on the individual as they become more self-sufficient.
Having established the crafting class and the difficulty or dedication of having a 'pure crafter', I'll go into the crafting system:
Every craft has a chance to fail. A fail is a loss of all materials used in the recipe. This has a few implications. One being that the players who put in the most effort to get the highest success rates possible were renowned within the community - something most crafters want in an MMO. The second implication was that there was a constant destruction of supply in the market. Making demand always high, and prices relatively immune to deflation due to surplus. Nobody likes crafting an item that is worth less than the cost of materials.
To give you an idea, Most of the sought after player-made weapons had roughly a 35% chance of success when made by a forge smith, and maybe as low as 15-25% for a battle smith (depending largely on stats and level). That is A LOT of loss of materials with not a lot items floating around on the market. In my opinion, this is ideal.
On top of the crafting system was the upgrade system. In RO, this was handled by NPCs at a fixed percentage of success, but again, a failure would be a complete loss of that item. The higher an item was upgraded, the higher the chance of failure.
Much like the sandbox nature of leveling a character (to which there is no real end), player crafted gear had almost no end. To craft an item and upgrade it to a maximum of +10 was virtually unheard of. Amour could also be upgraded in the same way. This lead to a continual destruction of high priced items; once rich players had their ideal set of gear and set their sights on upgrading each piece to higher levels.
so what was the outcome of such a system?
-It promoted the idea that there was no 'max gear set'. No matter how rich someone was, they would never obtain +10 on all their gear... in fact for the 3 years I played, I can't recall anyone having 1 piece of gear at +10. Although I'm sure some uber rich person may have had one.
-Crafters had a distinct role in the community. Most people knew all the good crafters, as the people who devoted the most time ended up with their name on most of the items on the market. If you were a high level pure forge smith everybody wanted to be your friend :)
-Virtually all of the materials that went into crafting items, and the crafted items themselves were subject to destruction; leaving supply low even over long periods of time.
A lot of people criticize such systems. Many call them casinos as they're just random luck for the individual. When I look at the end result however, I like what I see. EVE had a system wherein your death meant a loss of a ship, its mods, and its cargo. I'm not sure how PFO will handle player death, but unless you lose all your gear and inventory, something else needs to be in place to serve as the balancing mechanism for item saturation.
I know we have a diverse community with backgrounds in all other MMORPGs. What are your thoughts on systems that combat over-saturation of items and gold? Which have worked best in other games? And can they be adopted to fit in PFO?
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system you describe apparently achieved a rate of 'magical destruction' which was well balanced against the rate of 'magical creation'.
To explain that a bit further, if players can go out and harvest a resource (e.g. metal for weapons) from the environment and, as in many MMOs, that resource just periodically appears in an area then the resource is essentially appearing by magic with a potentially infinite supply only constrained by the rate at which players can harvest it.
Once that sort of 'magical creation' exists you have the potential problem of market saturation... players gather so much of the resource that someone is willing to sell it for next to nothing. The standard solution to this problem is to have some corresponding means of magically destroying things... you try to craft a sword from your metal and fail... the metal magically disappears. If the rates of creation and destruction can be properly balanced then you can have stable prices.
I've always wondered if it wouldn't be possible to instead give an MMO a REAL economy. Peg the amount of raw materials and coinage in the game world to values determined by the number of active players. So there would only be a certain amount of iron, wood, gold, et cetera in the world, but this would increase as the number of players did. Maybe there could still be magical creation/destruction if that was easier than tracking where every gold piece is at any given moment, but the total amount of various materials in the world would be fixed. Ergo, automatically balanced. You do something which 'destroys' eight 'units' of iron... eight units of iron become available for mining somewhere else in the world. In such a system the big danger would be a lack of liquidity... people hoarding resources and thus creating a market shortage. However, that could be controlled by having progressive 'taxes' on large amounts of any resource to put it back into circulation if unused for a period of time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a crafter, in many different MMO's, unless your wares had an impact on the end-game, you always lost money, more often than naught weapon/armor smiths because of boss mob drops. Even recipes that dropped in end game content weren't as good as the drops themselves. I'm hoping that PFO will fix this.
One system I really thought that had a impact to final product was SWG (Star Wars Galaxies). The various crafting components had a different degree of quality each rotation (usually 8 days). So, on tuesday you harvest some iron near your town with an hardness of 87, but the following week, that hardness was only 80. As a crafter you tried at acquire the highest quality so that you can make the best possible item. You'd use the lower quality components to grind your skill up.
Maybe PFO can adopt this along with a system that boss mobs drop components/recipes for the best gear (and not the gear itself). I think this approach would put a huge need for the weapon/armor smiths out there. As well as the consumable artisans.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they also follow the method that Eve uses where you don't level out of a certain material. In games like Wow once your skill gets to a certain level, you no longer need to use copper ore. But in Eve even the highest level item utilizes the lowest level materials in graduating quantities it keeps the value of all materials up providing a steady income for even beginning players.
I hope that makes sense :p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Clynx, +1 for the awesome post. I really hope that GW comes up with a system like this. What also lends to this idea is that upon death, it is possible to lose gear to the player who killed you, this makes replacing gear an important part of the economy (just like replacing ships and such in EVE) AND you're not going to be wanting to walk around fully loaded with all the best gear, as a good amount of that will be vulnerable to theft. You'll want to plan exactly which pieces of gear are going to give you the best benefit, thread those, and then base the rest of your equipment around what you can afford to lose.
@Rognyvald, its been discussed that players will make virtually everything in the game. As much as I've read, you're not going to be fighting in dungeons to get the +3 Sword of Awesome, you're going to be fighting in dungeons to get the rare magical componants the crafters need to make said sword. PvE will be used as a way to introduce non-harvestable materials into the economy, but crafters will be needed to make these things into something useful. Great player-made Kingdoms will have a balance of fighters, harvesters, and crafters if they want to be self sufficent.
@Valandur, me too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In an arbitrage economy you often depend on market saturation - that's the first half of making a profit.
Also, plenty of material is lost regularly to PVP deaths so I doubt a 65% crafting failure rate would ever be necessary. Spots will pop up where players can turn into downright arms dealers and still be low on inputs.
In an arbitrage economy you often depend on market saturation - that's the first half of making a profit.
Also, plenty of material is lost regularly to PVP deaths so I doubt a 65% crafting failure rate would ever be necessary. Spots will pop up where players can turn into downright arms dealers and still be low on inputs.
Crafting failure doesn't prevent or stop saturation at the consumable commodity level. All the materials that are harvested to make a crafted item still saturate the market. The difference is that they are kept at a stable price because what they are used to make is what does not saturate. Not only do crafted items not sell for less than the cost of materials, but usually around 300% the cost of materials (in the example from RO). I think failures are just as important (if not more) than HQ procs. What they add to crafting is a sense of risk - much like any other aspect of a sandbox game.
I have no problems with an arbitrage economy. I loved the idea that in EVE you could cert your way into large cargo ships and just haul stuff from one system to another to make a tidy profit. From a game designer point of view however, the point of those systems isn't just to let players acquire wealth by buying low and selling high; it's to eliminate gold from the economy via listing/selling cuts taken by the game. As much of there is a need to keep items from saturating, you also have to design ways to keep currency down as well.
In any case, I wouldn't advocate for the exact system RO used. Player deaths do add something to the mix, which that game didn't have. Another difference not yet accounted for are the blueprints. I think I've seen a dev mention them in a post before. I wonder if it'll work just like EVE or if they'll make any changes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe a total loss of material if craft fails may not be necessary/appropiate too. You could just loose a greater part or have the chance to loose it all or just a part.
Itens should be recicleable as using an old almost useless sword as a source of material to help in the craft a new and better one.
The fact that the map will be expanded along the years, will provide that new resources will always be available to be prospected/extracted. But it will be farther and farther from your settlement, inplying in incresing risk to gather and transport it.
That may have an impact on inflation as well. Though DEVs can always create nem sources in the old hexes to try balancing economy if a resource become so rare and/or expensive that it make the economy to be dangerously unstable.
Maybe including someone with an economy professional background in te DEVs team would be a good measure to assure the economy system to works fine.
Just my two cents...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe a total loss of material if craft fails may not be necessary/appropiate too. You could just loose a greater part or have the chance to loose it all or just a part.
Itens should be recicleable as using an old almost useless sword as a source of material to help in the craft a new and better one.
I'd say it should depend upon the material/resources used, and how they are used. Wood, for example would be much harder to recycle, as it has been carved and shaped. Iron, on the other hand can be re-smelted. However if it has been used to make an alloy, smelting it down to its component materials is pretty impossible. We'll just have to see how realistic the Crafting system is, as that is all up to the Devs at this point, depending upon what is possible to code and still keep PFO running quickly.
dot
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I promote the idea that your resources can have variable quality to begin with. Then the skill of the craftsman affects that base quality in making the basis, or components, and finally the skill of the master craftsman affects the final product.
If quality is always of a range of 1-100, where 1 is exceedingly poor and 100 is superlatively good, a string of extreme results can either cause failure or critical excellence at every step.
Which brings us to the mercantile process. A purchaser who is completely unskilled but purchasing a short sword cannot tell how good the finished blade is except that he knows it did not fail. A very skilled swordsman or metalsmith, however, can tell at a glance the quality of the sword. In betwee, where most players will usually fall, the amount of skill relavent to the product will yield descriptions that will report an approximation of the quality, with the less skilled gaining more general descriptions and the more skilled gaining more narrow and specific descriptions.
For the person of little skill, examining a blade might yeild something like 'looks like a serviceable weapon' whereas the more skilled would see "decently balanced, this blade will probably hold an edge an entire battle and resist breaking tolerably well".
Yet the seller cannot tell just by looking at the purchaser whether he will be able to see the sword's quality. The purchaser can always see the reputation of the merchant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragon, it's just a personal pet peeve of mine when I get the improved result when I really wanted the regular result.
I think there is a real concern, though, when you create a mechanic that forces the crafter to make a whole bunch of crap - and flood the market with it - while they're trying to create the item they really want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One system I really thought that had a impact to final product was SWG (Star Wars Galaxies). The various crafting components had a different degree of quality each rotation (usually 8 days). So, on tuesday you harvest some iron near your town with an hardness of 87, but the following week, that hardness was only 80. As a crafter you tried at acquire the highest quality so that you can make the best possible item. You'd use the lower quality components to grind your skill up.
Firefall has a similar mechanic. The four main components come in 4 different levels of quality: white, green, blue and purple. White being the lowest, purple being the highest. Gear crafted with better quality creates better gear. It is randomly determined by the server so you have to actively seek out better quality veins. They are dynamic as well.
I personally love that system and would love to see something like that implemented in PFO as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, I'm okay with a system which has variable results as long as the results are not random, but instead are based on the ability of the crafter do whatever he needs to do effectively.
I would concur except I would distinguish the resource gatherer, assuming that is craft anyway. The forester can seek out higher quality woods, the miner higeher quality ores, but what comes out of the ground and what is hewn from the tree will necessarily be no better than what was available.
Animal skinners can get a better hide with greater skill at skinning, and of course they should be able to be selective about which animals to take for the quality of their hides.
This would also pay off in the market as a skilled leatherworker should be able to guage the quality of the leather.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if Improved Result is something that consumes less resources.
I personally would still find it frustrating that I had to buy all the resources before I could start, then had leftovers afterwards.
Ultimately, it's the randomness of it that bothers me. I'd be absolutely thrilled if the Improved Result was a result of player skill instead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you also favor randomness being drawn out of combat? Consistent damage, instead of a random range?
My notion is to merely add similar notions of a successful craft as to what exist in a successful swing of a weapon.
I would love a flexible system that allows you to 'allocate' your skill points to crafting an item.
Let's say you have 30 points in Craft Blades (or weapon, or whatever).
A base dagger costs 10 points.
A base sword costs 30 points.
Perhaps you could add on:
Keen Edge (+1 damage) - 20 points
Efficient (reduce material cost) - 10 points
Cold Iron - 10 points
Silvered - 20 points
You could then make a normal sword. Or a normal dagger. Or an efficent, cold iron dagger (10 + 10 + 10 = 30).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even the skilled can have a shaky hand, a sweaty grip, or a bad day. There should be some random element to it.
I'm perfectly fine with a random chance of failure.
@Lifedragon, I think random results in Combat is a good way of modeling a reasonable system that is consistent with the real world in the ways we want it to be, although I generally prefer a bell curve for the randomness so that most results are fairly consistent.
When it comes to crafting, though, I just can't get past the negative impact of creating large numbers of "crap" that flood the market or just get vendored or thrown away in order to make the thing I'm actually trying to make. It's just a personal opinion...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My last example was of allocation - you would define what you were trying to make, and your options would be limited by skill.
It would admittedly not make sense to 'accidentally' or 'through a stroke of luck' create a weapon that somehow does +4 fire damage, as happens in some other games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you also favor randomness being drawn out of combat? Consistent damage, instead of a random range?
Combat is not decided by one single roll, unlike the typical "random result" of crafting.
If the process of crafting was as complex as combat, with multiple rounds of random rolls, nuances of positioning, and the crafter using their various crafting abilities on their ability bar to "overcome" the challenge, that would be awesomesauce. One roll of the die for random result? No thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple ideas I'd throw in.
In crafting, the process could happen in stages - at each stage, the crafter can be given an expected chance of success (which shrinks with each stage), and amount of materials returned if they cancel ahead of time. Various other mechanics can alter this to have greater success/salvage rates per trade - this allows some grainularity for beginning/master crafters as to whether or not a project will succeed, and allow materials to be siphoned out of the system.
The second idea, should be that as a crafters skill increases - to a certain extent they are able to use exotic materials, but they should also be able to BETTER utilize simplier, or otherwise inefficent components for otherwise harder objects. This would both keep beginner resources valuable, and allow crafters to make a premium off their skills. Anyone could make a high quality sword out of steel, but if you could make just as good a sword out of bronze and copper (and fairy dust for example), you can buy those components at a lost less, and charge the same premium.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I think random results in Combat is a good way of modeling a reasonable system that is consistent with the real world in the ways we want it to be, although I generally prefer a bell curve for the randomness so that most results are fairly consistent.
...
We are unlikely to see a bell curve distribution of results for a random function on a computer. Each value in the range (as 1-100) will have an equal chance: you are no more likely to get a 50 than you are a 100.
What you can do is simulate a bell curve if that is your idea of normal distribution, but 1-100 is unlikely to give you enough room.
I'm not going to get into the calculus, as calculus still considers me a consummate buffoon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Okay. I was thinking something more complicated, factoring maybe seventy chances to roll a fifty, 35 chances to roll a seventy five, and one chance to roll a hundred (filling the rest of the intervals such that the figure described looks like a bell curve if they were stacked up).
Simplicity is elegant.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you also favor randomness being drawn out of combat? Consistent damage, instead of a random range?
Combat is not decided by one single roll, unlike the typical "random result" of crafting.
If the process of crafting was as complex as combat, with multiple rounds of random rolls, nuances of positioning, and the crafter using their various crafting abilities on their ability bar to "overcome" the challenge, that would be awesomesauce. One roll of the die for random result? No thanks.
Sounds like EQ2 crafting to me. There was a degree of technique to it. It wasn't just "put component A in Slot A, and salt and vwalah!" You had to actively participate. I wasn't too keen on that method, not only did it affect your success, it also affected the quality of the item IIRC.
I would go for guaranteed success with varying quality before I'd have a loss of material and a standard result.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You can make a single random function with any desired distribution; flat and bell curve are off-the-shelf options.
Any system which consumes materials without producing output has the primary effect of multiplying the material costs by the reciprocal of the success rate. That applies to "critical success" results; either they add 1% to the total failure rate, if making the regular stuff, or they make the failure rate 99%, of they are worth that much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think part of the problem of trying to balance this sort of thing is that there's actually two major motivations for why people want to craft in an MMO: One is that they enjoy crafting for its own sake, and the other is wanting to make money selling stuff to other players.
Those whose sole motivation is wanting to sell stuff to others generally want to the process to be as streamlined and simple as possible (so that they can make money with the least effort), while those who want to enjoy crafting for its own sake typically want the process to be more engaging so as to add even more enjoyment to it.
Obviously, these are competing goals.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
One option might be to have mass-production dissociated from small scale operations. The mass-production line would use an extra X% of base materials and time, while the smaller operations would have X% expected failure with material loss. There could even be a 'factory seconds' market equivalent to the degrade result.
Mass production could require less personal involvement, but have fewer or no exceptional results.
@Tuoweit: I think the people who are just out to make money can do so by several methods. I think if you want a simple streamlined way to just make money, you should take up buying from one market and selling to another. OR... what about contracting crafters into huge buy orders?
I imagine each type of craft in the game will have its own training requirements for it. Much like in EVE, you could specialize in refining each type of ore for example. I don't think crafting weaponry/armor will be the easy way to make money. It'll likely require some serious investment in very specific skills, and so I'd prefer to see a system tailored (no pun intended) to the players who do it because that's their niche in the world. To reduce it to a safe and mundane task would kind of rob them of the 'cool factor' on the part of the game they chose to specialize in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tuoweit: I think the people who are just out to make money can do so by several methods. I think if you want a simple streamlined way to just make money, you should take up buying from one market and selling to another. OR... what about contracting crafters into huge buy orders?
I imagine each type of craft in the game will have its own training requirements for it. Much like in EVE, you could specialize in refining each type of ore for example. I don't think crafting weaponry/armor will be the easy way to make money. It'll likely require some serious investment in very specific skills, and so I'd prefer to see a system tailored (no pun intended) to the players who do it because that's their niche in the world. To reduce it to a safe and mundane task would kind of rob them of the 'cool factor' on the part of the game they chose to specialize in.
I agree entirely, except for the comparison to EVE refining - the difference in training those skills was relatively tiny. But I'll just clarify that I don't think crafting SHOULDN'T make money - it just shouldn't be the the simplest way.
I think if you want a simple streamlined way to just make money, you should take up buying from one market and selling to another
This will be possible in PFO. I really enjoyed Eves market system, knowing I was heading to a certain area and being able to load up on some item that's needed there so the sell price is higher, was excellent. I was able to turn a small amount of coin (Isk) into a good sized amount by just shuffling items from one area to another and adding the profits into the quantity of goods I was buying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The best market system I ever seen in MMOs was EVE's. I would love to see PFOs system reach that level or even do better than EVE's one.
As for crafting, I like the idea of balanced chances of succes and failure being influenced by crafter's skill level and material quality. Some random results would be ok but not too much. I Hope Skill will be the key factor in crafting activities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, I will make this short, can I please get a reasonable system, where I don't have to replace weapons? Maybe a character wants to use the nonmagical old sword his grandfather gave to him. In the Pathfinder RPG you could just get that very same sword improved with magic. Even if the sword melts, or is shattered there are spells to repair that.
I really don't want to put blacksmiths out of work, but can't we find some way for them to have something to do? Repairing and maintaining gear could work, or maybe some way to let them temporarily enhance weapons. Alchemists could create potions of magic weapons, other examples could be scrolls, items created by alchemy, magical ammunition, magical sharpening stones, wands …
I really don't mind upkeep or repair cost for items that stay with you when you return from death, it's actually pretty normal to have to pay after dieing.
This is more of a plea, that me saying that you are doing it wrong. I have no experience with EVE, but from what I hear there is quite a high variety of awesome ships, but no one ever uses them since people die so often. That might not be true, but I don't think that copy&paste what worked in EVE.
I might be very wrong.
What you were willing to lose in EVE was always redefined the longer you played. Maybe your first real cool ship you never wanted to risk... but once you had enough money to buy a second one; sure, you could use it, knowing that if you died you still had another. And then you'd get an even better ship than those that you wouldn't risk and the previous two aren't as special as they once were. It's a leap frog effect.
But the very existence of risk is what makes you care about your own development. I think it's important to fear losing something. It gives it more value, and you really care about it. Some people in EVE cared about their ships so much that once they lost it; they quit the game. As unfortunate as that is (I don't think any amount of pixels is worth quitting over), it shows a strong connection to what a player has achieved.
That also lends to the politics of guilds and alliances. Once you actually care about your stuff, it's important to defend it against loss. Grouping up with other people to fortify an area of territory will give you a stronger protection against loss for a while. But once all the big groups stake their claim, you're probably going to see aggression break out. Some groups might try to take over smaller, less defended areas. Others might want to take on the biggest factions to prove they're the top dog that shouldn't be messed with.
--
I made this post to try to emphasize the cause and effect nature you see in MMO design. There are repercussions to even the smallest (and often assumed localized) issues. Loss upon death is one of the biggest and more important factors that make player created content work. On the small, local scale; yes, you might feel really bad when you lose stuff. On the lager scale, it's what drives the community to interact. Not just for negative griefing, but for positive things as well. If you can play and succeed as a force for 'good' in a system where it's very easy to be bad to other players; you'll have a far greater sense of achievement.
Be very careful when you consider change that would make something easier or faster for you. It has the potential to cheapen the game on the whole. Case and point; World of Warcarft is now the most fun single player game that was once (barely) an MMORPG.
Great ideas in this thread, and I know that GW is most likely considering this idea from all sides.
I can't add too much, but what about item decay, item repair, and the possibility of deconstructing items?
All three of these things can help "use up" raw materials in a way that will balance "magical" creation and "magical" destruction.
Item decay can be a function of time, combat, specifically using an item, or something similar. Item repair could require the use of raw materials. Also, deconstructing items could lead to a pile of raw materials that is smaller than what was required to create the item.
Also, a quick note, I would like to see crafters be relevant through all phases of a character's life, not just "end game". Not that there is an end game!
Aso, every player character should have a need for all types of crafters. I liked how DAOC had leather crafting as a requirement for heavy armor, as an example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe a character wants to use the nonmagical old sword his grandfather gave to him.These kinds of concerns are very important to me, too.
My hope is that Blacksmiths will have enough work just repairing swords, and making consumables (whetstones or what have you).
My hope is that crafters will be used to:
-make new gear-repair gear
-improve gear
-customize/reskin gear
-make consumables
-deconstruct gear (recycle materials)
The ability for crafters to add/chage improvements ("keywords" for weapons) and change the looks of items should go a long way towards creating demand.
Deconstruction might well be counted as 'material refining' and not crafting. ie. turning swords into iron ingots is a a job for the smelter, not the smith. Reforging a sword (repair + improve + customize) is a smith job though.
I agree that crafters should spend the majority of their time repairing rather than necessarily creating, and I like the idea of crafting including some risk. As a smelter in my spare time, I can attest that sometimes you mess up and end up ruining your stock or just having to melt it back down and try again. But, for those who don't like the concept of accidentally making something "special", I can attest that that happens sometimes, as well, although, admittedly, it doesn't normally do +4 fire damage unless you grab it before it cools...
That all said, I would not be happy if I was trying to repair an item, especially someone's precious heirloom, and I accidentally destroyed it. Even if repairing an item must have some risk, I would hope that it would greatly diminish as you increase in skill.
Also, I love the suggestion that crafters can customize gear by reskinning it and that crafting should be more involved than just get two pieces of material and click a button. If crafting is intended to be a focus apart from combat, it needs to be equally intriguing, perhaps as almost a mini-game in itself every time you craft something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I think mechanically with what is intended, crafters should be 80% creating. An important item that is regularly carried on you, will likely be where you use your threads, since you obviously don't want that lost on death, and then assuming wear and tear/repairs are needed, that would be where repairing goes.
The devs have pretty much explained most gear is going to be mass produced, churned out, lost regularly etc...
Personally I don't see that as a bad thing, it adds significance to the 10-20% of gear that is important. Think of just about every hero of legend, anyone remember King authors breastplate, or boots? Nope those all fell into the background while Excalibur stole the show.
When you pay heavy attention to your armor, shoes, wand, ring1 ring2, helmet, amulet, etc... all of it just winds up blending in. When one item is special by comparison, it adds far more significance.
and yes an extreme +1 for upgrading and having a possible way for the same item to remain significant through your entire career if you wish it to be.