Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity [BETA RELEASED, GO TO THE NEW THREAD]

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Yeah, why have a system that makes sense when you can have a system that doesn't?

Because fun and balance are most important.

Also quasi-simulationists are quite arbitrary when it comes to what they consider acceptable. If you're going to be arbitrary might as well go all the way.

Do tell, where's the fun in a money-sink? Because that's the only gameplay impact Cain's system has. If you implement a durability system, then you should make it affect your consideration whether to run shiny sword first into a golem, as that's the only potentially fun way it can affect gameplay.

Also, I still get the idea that Sawyer's not working towards balancing parties as a whole, but individual party members; but I guess we'll see how it turns out in the end now won't we!

 

[Sensuki]

I missed that, do you mind explaining what happened there?

http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...rid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=434#post417033820

 

[Blaine]

Okay, lemme spell it out to you:

1. Many players do not like to buy items. This results in huge sums of money by late game.
2. There is an option to sink this money into the stronghold
3. If an option exists, there should be an advantage to it and a disadvantage. Without a second, alternative cash sink, there is no disadvantage to investing in the stronghold for the large fraction of players who do not buy items.
4. Durability provides the second cash sink for those players. For players who like to buy items, there is now a three-way tradeoff, which is even better.

That doesn't work because regardless of whether you find items, buy them, or craft them, they'll still take durability damage and must still be repaired. The only way it makes any sense is if bought items are much less expensive to repair than found items, which... doesn't make any sense at all in the long view, since presumably bought items are just as good as (or better than) found items. Otherwise, no one would bother to buy them in the first place.

 

[Duraframe300]

On that note, what I'm sure of is though, that crafting will get adjusted. In the extreme case after release. So, I wouldn't see this as much more than a WIP.

 

[coffeetable]

That doesn't work because regardless of whether you find items, buy them, or craft them, they'll still take durability damage and must still be repaired. The only way it makes any sense is if bought items are much less expensive to repair than found items, which... doesn't make any sense at all in the long view, since presumably bought items are just as good as (or better than) found items. Otherwise, no one would bother to buy them in the first place.

Top-end bought items cost piles of money to purchase.

 

[Lancehead]

Okay, lemme spell it out to you:

1. Many players do not like to buy items. This results in huge sums of money by late game.
2. There is an option to sink this money into the stronghold
3. If an option exists, there should be an advantage to it and a disadvantage. Without a second, alternative cash sink, there is no disadvantage to investing in the stronghold for the large fraction of players who do not buy items.
4. Durability provides the second cash sink for those players. For players who like to buy items, there is now a three-way tradeoff, which is even better.

That doesn't work because regardless of whether you find items, buy them, or craft them, they'll still take durability damage and must still be repaired. The only way it makes any sense is if bought items are much less expensive to repair than found items, which... doesn't make any sense at all in the long view, since presumably bought items are just as good as (or better than) found items. Otherwise, no one would bother to buy them in the first place.

You're neglecting that the investments made in Stronghold may offer gameplay benefits. In such a case, the non-investors have an easier time with item maintenance but miss out on the benefits provided by the Stroghold investments, the investors, vice-versa.

 

[Rake]

Okay, lemme spell it out to you:

1. Many players do not like to buy items. This results in huge sums of money by late game.
2. There is an option to sink this money into the stronghold
3. If an option exists, there should be an advantage to it and a disadvantage. Without a second, alternative cash sink, there is no disadvantage to investing in the stronghold for the large fraction of players who do not buy items.
4. Durability provides the second cash sink for those players. For players who like to buy items, there is now a three-way tradeoff, which is even better.

The whole idea, and the fundamental point you might disagree with me on, is that you should never have enough money to do everything. You then have a choice of where to focus your insufficient quantity of cash.

Funny how if
1)Many players do not like to buy items. This results in huge sums of money by late game
2)There is an option to sink this money into the stronghold. So many players will not use the stronghold.
are in effect, the huge piles of money said players would have are completelly useless anyway. By your logic you could also ignore the third option and run around with damaged weapons.
So by ignoring all money sinks AND not buying items.... Scrooge Mcduck Achivement Unlocked. How having too much money is harming game balance if you made those money by not using money at all?
I mean if you don't buy items, money are useless anyway.

 

[coffeetable]

You're neglecting that the investments made in Stronghold may offer gameplay benefits. In such a case, the non-investors have an easier time with item maintenance but miss out on the benefits provided by the Stroghold investments, the investors, vice-versa.

I suspect it'll be like NWN2, where it helps with the in-game plot too. So you've a choice between doing what's best for the realm and doing what's best for your party.

(for people who buy items that tradeoff exists regardless of durability mechanics, but sawyer's right that there's a large population - myself included who don't buy shit ever)

 

[Grunker]

quasi-simulationists are quite arbitrary when it comes to what they consider acceptable.

 

[Blaine]

Top-end bought items cost piles of money to purchase.

And presumably they also cost piles of money to repair, correct?

Found items are "free"; they cost money to repair; bought items cost money; they also cost money to repair.

The "repair" clauses in the above sentence are superfluous. Remove them, and you still end up with players who use found items having more money than players who often use purchased items. The money sink isn't needed. And once again, if you want stronghold investors to do with lesser equipment, that's doable simply by balancing the game's overall currency faucet properly.

You're trying awfully hard to find a reason why durability mechanics are needed, but in the end we'll always come back to them being unneeded. Yes, they affect those who use high-end equipment more than those who settle for lesser equipment, but that would be true in some sense regardless of durability due to opportunity cost (or just money cost, in the case of bought items).

 

[coffeetable]

Funny how if
1)Many players do not like to buy items. This results in huge sums of money by late game
2)There is an option to sink this money into the stronghold. So many players will not use the stronghold.
are in effect, the huge piles of money said players would have are completelly useless anyway. By your logic you could also ignore the third option and run around with damaged weapons.
So by ignoring all money sinks AND not buying items.... Scrooge Mcduck Achivement Unlocked. How having too much money is hanming game balance if you made those money by not using money at all?
I mean if you don't buy items, money are useless anyway.

Balance in a single-player game means making sure no choice is obviously the right one. Without durability, then if you're allergic to buying items (like a large fraction of the playerbase is), investing in the stronghold is obviously the right choice. With durability, the choice is no longer as clear.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

quasi-simulationists are quite arbitrary when it comes to what they consider acceptable.

Funny how you left out what (s)he says next, because that's the consequence of the argument.

 

[Blaine]

You're neglecting that the investments made in Stronghold may offer gameplay benefits. In such a case, the non-investors have an easier time with item maintenance but miss out on the benefits provided by the Stroghold investments, the investors, vice-versa.

Actually I'm counting on the stronghold offering benefits, because otherwise it would just be a useless burden and arbitrary money sink.

 

[coffeetable]

And presumably they also cost piles of money to repair, correct?

Found items are "free"; they cost money to repair; bought items cost money; they also cost money to repair.

The "repair" clauses in the above sentence are superfluous. Remove them, and you still end up with players who use found items having more money than players who often use purchased items. The money sink isn't needed. And once again, if you want stronghold investors to do with lesser equipment, that's doable simply by balancing the game's overall currency faucet properly.

You're trying awfully hard to find a reason why durability mechanics are needed, but in the end we'll always come back to them being unneeded. Yes, they affect those who use high-end equipment more than those who settle for lesser equipment, but that would be true in some sense regardless of durability due to opportunity cost (or just money cost, in the case of bought items).

Oh my days. You're missing the first line in Sawyer's post: many players refuse point-blank to buy better kit. For them there's no opportunity cost in investing in the stronghold. Durability mechanics provide the opportunity cost.

Anyway, that's secondary to the other reasons, which are to provide a reason to use low-quality kit and to provide a reason to have crafting on multiple characters. Three birds, one stone.

 

[Sensuki]

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/64053-economy-in-project-eternity/

Economy discussion thread: Bring your Micro / Macroeconomics degrees to the table.

 

[Infinitron]

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

 

[Sensuki]

I am more annoyed by the fact that the rate of degradation is related to Crafting than the actual Item Durability thing itself.

 

[Volrath]

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

So it's a good dumbfuck detector? This is what the Codex wants isn't it?

 

[Blaine]

You're missing the first line in Sawyer's post: many players refuse point-blank to buy better kit. For them there's no opportunity cost in investing in the stronghold. Durability mechanics provide the opportunity cost.

I didn't miss it. If durability is enough to siphon off the excess currency of those who refuse to buy better kit, then what about those who do buy better kit? Are you assuming that people will sell their equipment and just buy more when it's damaged, rather than repairing? Because once again, that's the only way your Swiss cheese logic makes any sense.

 

[Rake]

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

Not the sole reason. I liked the Spirit Eater and while i didn't "like" the time limit in Fallout, it didn't bother me either. But i disliked item durability in Arcanum. It was mindless busywork and a (pretty useless on top of that) moneysink. The difference for me is that a time limit, Spirit Eater etc. are not irritating. An additional worry yes. An additional bother, no.

 

[Infinitron]

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

Not the sole reason. I liked the Spirit Eater and while i didn't "like" the time limit in Fallout, it didn't bother me either. But i disliked item durability in Arcanum. It was mindless busywork and a (pretty useless on top of that) moneysink. The difference for me is that a time limit, Spirit Eater etc. are not irritating. An additional worry yes. An additional bother, no.

The Spirit Eating was also an additional bother since you had to worry about suppressing your craving or getting your next fix.

 

[Grunker]

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

So it's a good dumbfuck detector? This is what the Codex wants isn't it?

There's a difference between annoying mechanics and hardcore mechanics, though I realize the difference eludes most of the Codex for much of the time. Spirit Eating could be avoided entirely by taking the good route (in which case management was easy), and it was a central mechanic of the game on the evil route. It had strong impact on the game and its management had many consequences that were entirely integral to how the game played.

Conversely, durability is just an an insignificant fix for another problems. It adds all the annoyance of the spirit meter without any of the advantages.

Essentially:

I think what people fear about durability is that it adds an additional "layer of worries" to the game that isn't traditionally a part of isometric RPGs. Constantly fretting about the state of your weapons and armor, having to think of when and how you'll repair them.

It's also one of the reasons people disliked the Spirit Eater mechanic in MotB, and time limit mechanics in general. "Stop nagging me with this ticking counter, game! I want to be RELAXED!"

Not the sole reason. I liked the Spirit Eater and while i didn't "like" the time limit in Fallout, it didn't bother me either. But i disliked item durability in Arcanum. It was mindless busywork and a (pretty useless on top of that) moneysink. The difference for me is that a time limit, Spirit Eater etc. are not irritating. An additional worry yes. An additional bother, no.

 

[Infinitron]

I am more annoyed by the fact that the rate of degradation is related to Crafting than the actual Item Durability thing itself.

That's kind of stupid. Just rename the skill to "Crafting and Weapon Maintenance" in your mind, if that helps. Imagine your character becomes better at applying whetstone after each battle to diminish damage done to his sword, or whatever.

 

[coffeetable]

You're missing the first line in Sawyer's post: many players refuse point-blank to buy better kit. For them there's no opportunity cost in investing in the stronghold. Durability mechanics provide the opportunity cost.

I didn't miss it. If durability is enough to siphon off the excess currency of those who refuse to buy better kit, then what about those who do buy better kit? Are you assuming that people will sell their equipment and just buy more when it's damaged, rather than repairing? Because once again, that's the only way your Swiss cheese logic makes any sense.

Okay kid. You're thinking in binary. Either upgrade the stronghold or not. Except if it's like NWN2, it's actually a whole pile of options.

Let's say there's 1000 gold in the game. Let's say that kitting out the stronghold fully takes 800 gold, that buying great items throughout the game costs 400 gold, and that maintaining great items - found or bought - costs 400 gold.

So here're the extreme choices with durability:

• Fully upgrade the stronghold, buy and maintain 1/4th of the great items.
• Fully upgrade the stronghold, find and maintain 1/2 of the great items.
• Buy and maintain all the great items, 1/5th upgrade the stronghold
• Find and maintain all the great items, 3/5ths upgrade the stronghold

There are four options for people who buy items, two options for people who don't buy items.

Now without durability:

• Fully upgrade the stronghold, buy 1/2 as many great items.
• Buy all the great items, 3/5ths upgrade the stronghold
• Find all the great items, fully upgrade the stronghold

There are two options for people who buy items. There is one option for people who don't.

ps stop trying to think you are obviously bad at it

 

[Rake]

The Spirit Eating was also an additional bother since you had to worry about suppressing your craving or getting your next fix.

But it offered some strategic considerations. As you said you had to worry about suppressing your craving or getting your next fix, it prevented rest spamming and go to random directions to smell the flowers etc. And for you to completelly suppress you hunger and be able to ignore it you had to have two brain cells to rub together. Item durability sounds to me is like the fatigue mechanic in BG. So slight a negative that it isn't much of a consideration, after all if your weapon is damaged won't be unusable, just have a penalty. If you didn't pay attention and happened, well, it happened.No big deal.
The difference is that in BG fatigue you just press rest, while in PE will have to backtrack to a smith(or a forge if you want to do it yourself) to repair it.
That's not a moron indicator, it's a patience tester.