Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

DurabilityFollow

#1 Oct 12 2004 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
I read this on the closed beta boards, seems like a great concept to me. Durability as a "punishment" really isn't a good idea IMO and somekind of fix along these lines would be great.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=414707&p=1#post414707
#2 Oct 12 2004 at 11:24 PM Rating: Decent
I really dont see it as a punishment just adding a little realism to the weapons. DAOC had it, SWG has it, SB has it. In daoc i never even really noticed because it took so long for it to degrade that by the time it might be getting low you replaced it with something. Plus its not like its going to be hard to repair the items. and it only matters if they hit 0 so i doubt it'll be that big of a thing.
#3 Oct 13 2004 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
It isn't meant as a punishment, just an economy "money sink" to help filter money out of the economy.

While the current rate of decay may be a little fast, I'm sure it will be adjust. One thing I've been noticing about Blizzard is they like to put things in at its worst and slowly make it better(as opposed to putting things in too powerful and later having to "nerf" it). Besides that, the system isn't complete so lets wait and see.

Btw, even Diablo had item decay! The smart thing is that after a night of adventuring, you go to town, fix your gear, find an Inn and log. Easy way to get to town? Use your "Hearthstone".
#4 Oct 13 2004 at 12:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
243 posts
Thank god, Kerik. I'm glad to see people finally preaching what Ive been. Blizz said the rate of decay would take actual days to notice (not game days, but RL). Just fix them before you log.

#5 Oct 13 2004 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,678 posts
Quote:
It isn't meant as a punishment, just an economy "money sink" to help filter money out of the economy.


From one perspective maybe. But it is a punishment for using your equipment. Might make me think twice about helping a newbie as I'm running through a low-level area. It definitely is a punishment for classes like rogue that dual wield quick weapons, or that have to tank for themselves while soloing (which is not limited to plate classes.)


Quote:
Btw, even Diablo had item decay! The smart thing is that after a night of adventuring, you go to town, fix your gear, find an Inn and log. Easy way to get to town? Use your "Hearthstone".


Diablo had scrolls of town portal. You could return to town at any point. In WoW, after you use your "scroll", you don't get another one for an hour, and often people use it as a jumpstart to hightail it somewhere else to join a group. How much can go wrong in an hour? Not much. But say I've been out in the field for two hours when I get an instance group on the other side of the planet; I hearthstone and take off to get there more quickly. In my haste, I may very well not take the time to repair my weapons on the way to a four-hour-plus instance run.

In a period of less than two hours, I lost 6 points out of 25 on a few of my armor pieces. Meaning repairing has to become part of the reflex reaction of going to see Charsi that it was in Diablo 2.

But take anything I say with a grain of salt, as I am morally opposed to durability of any kind. Kerik has the more realistic viewpoint, and I would be perfectly happy if he proved me wrong on all counts as a sort of Devil's Advocate post.
____________________________
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
#6 Oct 13 2004 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,073 posts
"It definitely is a punishment for classes like rogue that dual wield quick weapons, or that have to tank for themselves while soloing (which is not limited to plate classes.)"

I think it'll be interesting to see if they do anything about balancing the durability of quick-versus-slow weapons (or, for that matter, two-handers vs one-hander-plus-shield). WoW used to favor quicker weapons, because certain enhancements (sharpening stones or Shaman weapon buffs) got more mileage on quick weapons. Eventually they adjusted these effects to be time-independent, so weapon speed matters only when sizing up particular opponents. Slow, hard-hitters are better against foes with heavy armor, while fast weapons get you more interrupts against casters. If durability hurts faster weapons more, I can see players shifting towards slower weapons. It'll be interesting to watch, certainly.

"In a period of less than two hours, I lost 6 points out of 25 on a few of my armor pieces. Meaning repairing has to become part of the reflex reaction of going to see Charsi that it was in Diablo 2."

There's an alternative, of course, and I maintain that this was the original intent of durability: creating a larger market for slightly-below-top-quality goods. Let's go with a simple example, somewhat related to yours. I'm a guy who stays out of town a lot, and I can get away with it because I've got a 500 AC breastplate. (Simple, yes, but bear with me.) At my level there is no better breastplate. Why would I ever want anything else? But with durability in-game, now I have to think, do I really want to go to town that often? I don't like having to mount up and go back to a city, I like to stay in the field. What's my alternative? I carry a second breastplate, say a 480 AC one. Sure, it's not as good as my primary, but it means I can keep doing quests for twice as long.

This, I believe, was Blizzard's major goal with durability. It also helps out with the tradeskills. As a rule, crafted items are not as good as items from drops or quests. But crafting stuff is easier in most cases than instance grinding when all you want is a back-up. Or, even better, buying a slightly-inferior crafted weapon off of someone else as a back-up.

I believe Blizzard implemented durability for these reasons. Now whether or not durability achieves those ends is anyone's guess.
#7 Oct 13 2004 at 3:12 PM Rating: Decent
**
949 posts
I am cool with Durability. Its not like we can pass much of what we get anyways. Most of the gear that i got when i played beta was something i could only use and then i got something better. I can only say you will notice a huge difference once you get up to a lot higher levels. But its just costs money to fix it. And it doesnt break. Whats wrong with that? You most likely will head to town every few days you play so you can just fix it there. Live with it.
#8 Oct 13 2004 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,678 posts
I'd have to disagree with you, Chah. My inventory is limited enough without carrying an extra set of all my equipment. You might think having 5 16-slot containers is a lot, but it really isn't. At any given time, one bag is full with miscellaneous supplies, one is mostly full with assorted quest items (some of them long-term until I get around to doing that quest,) one gets filled with herbs I pick, and the fourth extra bag is for miscellaneous other things I nab that I don't want to vendor and also serves as overflow for my backpack after I pick up enough junk. I make optimal use of my bank space and am always putting stuff in it, but there are certain things I simply have to carry. I suppose I could bank my two pets and some of the quest items I know I'm not going to randomly decide to do, but I need potions and drinks, items and herbs are picked up out in the field...I just don't have 10 slots to dedicate to a spare set of equipment. I carry one extra staff, but that's because it has very different stats on it.

Now...I'm aware that some people do carry entire sets of equipment. That's their prerogative. But they also probably don't do herbalism, which is arguably the worst of the collection skills on inventory space. They also probably destroy a lot of the vendor fodder they pick up, whereas I use this as income, and find it annoying work to constantly destroy items anyhow.

No, I seriously doubt the intention was to make players carry two sets of equipment. Your scenario of thinking twice and having a second item might apply if we actually lost the item, but as it is, I'd sooner just use that as a prompt to return to town.
____________________________
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
#9 Oct 13 2004 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,520 posts
Blizzard stated on the boards that they are looking into putting in repair kits and the sort and have also said that the durability of items is suposed ot last up to 1-2 days.

The only problem not really addressed is the fact that casters are hurt less by this than tanks even though cloth has less durability.
#10 Oct 14 2004 at 6:51 AM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
LOL, I'm not sure about me being "Devil's Advocate", but you did miss mentining the most important part of my post:

Quote:
While the current rate of decay may be a little fast, I'm sure it will be adjust. One thing I've been noticing about Blizzard is they like to put things in at its worst and slowly make it better(as opposed to putting things in too powerful and later having to "nerf" it). Besides that, the system isn't complete so lets wait and see.


I've played EQ for 5 years and only NOW are they doing things to fix the economy. Go figure.

Personally I think the rate of decay may be fine, but the durability of items seems way too low. Multiple the current Durability by 4 and things should be MUCH more reasonable.

If still in doubt, re-read the quote I put in this post.
#11 Oct 14 2004 at 7:24 AM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
Oh, want to add something. I also played Ultima Online when it came out. In UO, items also had durability, BUT after an item was repaired, it's MAX durability went down a little. Every time an item was fixed the max durability would go down until the weapon because useless. I don't remember if broken weapons were able to be fixed or not if there was any max durability left.

Keep in mind that Blizzard could have done this as well but chose not too. I'm personally very grateful they didn't. I think everyone else should be as well. With this as a consideration I really like Blizzard's way of doing it and have faith that they know what they are doing and that the finished game will be great.

I don't consider myself a Blizzard "fan-boy" where they can do know wrong, I just have faith for now. Everyone makes comments about each change they don't like, but yet the game isn't finished. Most of the times they don't even wait to see how the change will effect them before posting. While the game is 95% complete, and Hunter Talents should make the next patch with Paladin talents being worked on and hopefully being released soon, that 5% of work are the finishing touches that will have an effect on the finished product. Let's see how it goes before complaining.

Agreed about one thing though..... If people don't complain that the current rate of item decay is too fast, it might not be changed. I think the complaints should be about the rate of decay though and not the system itself(not meant towards any specific poster, this is a general statement). Much like the 5 second cast rule, people don't like it, but it serves a purpose. I think people have adjusted to the 5 second cast rule now anyway.
#12 Oct 14 2004 at 11:46 AM Rating: Decent
*
243 posts
I have complete faith in Blizzard. Always have and always will (even though they still released the always broken Broodwar).

In response to Azurc, if you forget to repair items in your "haste" before heading out that is your fault not mine and not the game designers.

#13 Oct 14 2004 at 1:03 PM Rating: Decent
****
6,678 posts
Kerik, I meant treat my post as playing Devil's Advocate.

bumzilla, I wouldn't consider it my fault my group needs me. Now. If I don't stop to empty my bags of random crap I need to sell, and I don't make a trip to the bank (which are only in a select few places,) what makes you think I'm going to take the time to repair as well, unless the issue becomes grotesque to the point that concern for it overrides any other in-town issues?
____________________________
Only the exceptions can be exceptional.
#14 Oct 14 2004 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
*
243 posts
If you bags are full of stuff that you CAN sell/auction and you don't because you feel the need to rush to meet your party it is YOUR fault that you will not get needed items with the party. This leads me to believe that you will empty spots that you can before meeting a party (I emptied spots I knew I could often because I contantly ran out of room even with the damn bagdrop bug). And since a smart man would already be doing this (and blizzard said you can repair at MOST shops) it is again YOUR fault that you did not click ONE more button to repair your items.

Total time taken to do what I just said: 1 minute. No more, no less.

Will a party ditch you because of the 1 minute delay? Only if they are complete ******** who like you don't understand item conservation and resource management.
#15 Oct 14 2004 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
Azuarc, It's all good bro. I'm not crazy about durability having been added myself, but it could have been worse as I explained, and I understand its purpose. Knowing that, what can you do. I do believe it will be tweaked though to make players happy and to be more realistic.

For instance, faster weapons should decay slower than slower weapons but slower weapons should have a higher durability. Why? Well, just as you said, they'd have to be repaired a lot more often. Also, you could say that they are faster because they are lighter(which is why they have lower durability) but aren't hitting with as much force(which is why they wear slower).

Larger slower weapons would have the opposite true. They are bigger and slower(so have a higher durability) and they hit a lot harder and for more damage(so they wear faster).

All things averaged out, the items should need to be repaired at about the same times(instead of one kind of item needing to be repaired more often).

Personally I think it should work out to needing to repair your items every 6 game hours of USE! When I say use, I mean 6-8 hours of actual COMBAT time, not just the fact that 6 hours have past. A better example would be if you played to 2 hours one night and about 60 minutes of that 2 hours was your combat time, that would be 60 minutes worth of item wear(or 1/6th the items value(a 30 durability item would then be 25/30).

Using this method you could go a few days without needing to repair your items. I know I'll get to play about 3-4 hours a night. I figure if I play that amount of time, I'd expect maybe 2 hours of it to be combat so it would be 3 days before an item would become useless and HAVE to be repaired.

That sound reasonable?

Edit for spelling.

Edited, Thu Oct 14 23:40:17 2004 by KerikDaven
#16 Oct 17 2004 at 12:27 PM Rating: Decent
Durability IMHO is EXCELLENT.

You may think I'm strange; you've seen nothing yet.

My reasons: I, personally, did not like being able to, every 2 levels go back to town, get all my spells, and get new equipment. Why? Because it did not seem right, and I'd even have money left over after that, it seemed like I was getting too much money off the monsters.

This way, with durability it makes it much more realistic, it's like paying your bills, if someone suddenly made bills an enhancement rather than a punishment or, a task of tedium, and, with this new system, you'd only have to pay money if you wanted to have electricity or water in your house. How many people would have water, or electricity?

The same amount?

Less?

More?

I'd say about even, so, why make it optional when you can just hit 'em hard with the durability and make it so everyone has to do it?

I am looking forward to this new durability system. I hope they make the leveling speed a little slower also, but, if they don't I can live with it. :)
#17 Oct 19 2004 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
would anyone like some cheese with there wine. the game has durribility suck it up and get over it. i am sure that almost everone here played D2 and had to repair items. omg its so horible i have to go to town once a day maybe to repair my weapon i am gunna cry. sorry if i sound like a jerk but seriously some people complain a lot about little piddly things. Play FFXI for a week and see how many time and money sinks there are then complain about durribility. thats all i can say
#18 Oct 19 2004 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Thats poor logic. The game is saposed to be fun. If Final Fantasy is worse then no one should be playing it. Eq had a lot of things I hated, but at least it didn't have durability.

With that said it hasn't bothered me as much as I thought it would. I can usually grind out a level or two before I'm forced to go to town.
#19 Oct 19 2004 at 9:22 PM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
Quote:
Thats poor logic. The game is saposed to be fun. If Final Fantasy is worse then no one should be playing it.

It might seem ironic, but that is a large part of the reason why durability is there to begin with! When the economy spirals out of control, the game becomes less fun. When the economy can be properly controlled, the game should be more fun as items are selling for their values rather than at inflated or value-less rates. Durability is a small price to pay for that.

EQ btw is a really poor example of how an in-game economy should be run. It's five years later and they're still trying to get it under control.
#20 Oct 19 2004 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
My turn, in a way everyone is correct.

Durability was implemented for the propose of sucking up the inflation at the top of the economy. Once you reach lvl 60, or the max for any game, all you do is go around stuffing your pockets with currency. If you get too much then prices go haywire, really haywire. And as anyone sentient in the Reagan years knows: Inflation trickles down the economy much faster than wealth.

The problem is going to be very delicate. How do you balance a mage versus a fighter? How do you balance a melee fighter vs. a ranged fighter? How do you balance a fast hit vs. a slow hit? It seems that these answers are yet unanswered. I really think the most important is how will durability effect the lower levels versus the higher levels. Under the cap a mage class spends a lot of currency on abilities, and this kind of makes up for durability, as the price goes up very fast. I had trouble keeping both pets and myself up in the teens, and really had to focus only on a set of abilities before the stress test end. Sure I spent a lot on equipment, but I wanted to see what things looked like.

The issue of durability is going to be a big challenge for the team. I really hope it plays a very small role until after level 45 when they will need to start tapping some currency form the higher members. That is only if this follows the normal pattern of real wealth arriving about 75% up the level chain. As I have no experience with how durability really works ill leave this par alone.

Last word Durability will present a viable part of the endgame levels, and as a part of the game as a whole. The problem is what will really happen, this is a dangerous issue that needs to be treated with care. Remember this is still the beta, many changes will be made in the future.


Edited, Tue Oct 19 23:21:02 2004 by Ketsukei
#21 Oct 19 2004 at 10:44 PM Rating: Good
**
531 posts
Quote:
How do you balance a mage versus a fighter? How do you balance a melee fighter vs. a ranged fighter? How do you balance a fast hit vs. a slow hit?

Well, as far as on weapon speeds, my idea would work well. The rate of wear would have to be inversely proportional to the weapon's speed as I explain here:
Quote:
Faster weapons should decay slower than slower weapons but slower weapons should have a higher durability. Why? Well, just as you said, they'd have to be repaired a lot more often. Also, you could say that they are faster because they are lighter(which is why they have lower durability) but aren't hitting with as much force(which is why they wear slower).

Larger slower weapons would have the opposite true. They are bigger and slower(so have a higher durability) and they hit a lot harder and for more damage(so they wear faster).

All things averaged out, the items should need to be repaired at about the same times(instead of one kind of item needing to be repaired more often).


Ranged items would wear in a similar fashion.

As far as Casters versus melee, weapon wear would work about the same. On the armor end though, the lower the level of protection the armor gives, the lower the durability. Mages would need to repair their armors more often, but this is not AS large of a problem as it would seem as the lighter armored classes should be getting hit less(**see notes below**). In this case durability needs to be in direct proportion to to the amount of damage that will be taken.


Note: I say the classes with lighter armors should be getting hit less because if you think about it, it's true.

Tanks take the brunt of the damage so need the heaviest armors.

Leather wearers(including Hunters even though they later wear chain) have ways of dealing damage while getting hit less(often this takes the form of high DPS(Damage per second) so that a creature that dies faster deals less damage, or a pet that does the tanking).

Cloth wearers do what they can to stay at range or to stun the creature so it can't be as effective in combat.

Grouped, it's the member's jobs to let the tank hold aggro. If you are drawing aggro from the creature, you need to better learn to pace your attacks so as to not gain aggro.
#22 Oct 19 2004 at 10:52 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
very well put you 2 you both have valad points. If you think about it who really wants durability. no one says cool i can pay money because my weapon breaks. but if you think about it it can add a lot to the game. for one it slows it down. it also creates a semi money sink. isntead of people being lvl 60 and not needing any more but having all the money in the world this makes it so that if they want to fight they have to spend there money. i am sure it will suck a bit at lower levels to have to repair and spend money on that but i assume it will be pretty cheap and get more expensive as you get higher in lvl. all in all its a good thing even though it may not seem like it
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 277 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (277)