Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Equipment Durability/RepairFollow

#1 Jul 05 2009 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Equipment repair/durability:

No. Bad idea, just used as a money sink in games.

And VERY un-Final Fantasy.


EDIT: added a poll to the OP, tried to make it fair to honestly gauge what people's opinions are.

EDIT 2: can't add a poll.

Edited, Jul 13th 2009 3:35am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#2 Jul 05 2009 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
**
264 posts
100% agree! This and burden/weight restriction are horrible ideas that I hope never to see in any FF game.
____________________________
I also want double eyepatches, to increase my pirate bravado.
#3 Jul 05 2009 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
11 posts
I don't necessarily think this is horrible compared the an experience loss penalty which, at least back when i played XI, caused no one to ever want to do anything for fear of dying.
#4 Jul 05 2009 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
Equipment repair/durability:

No. Bad idea, just used as a money sink in games.

And VERY un-Final Fantasy.


As opposed to the time sink used in other games? Either/or there's a penalty. Equipment durability is typically enough to keep you from treating death as a trivial thing without discouraging the average Joe from taking risks (solo) or learning new content (group).
#5 Jul 05 2009 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
**
264 posts
Ah..... my bad, I got the wrong impression of what this post was about. Let me clarify. I have played a few RPGs where durability/repair and the idea of a maximum burdin were just part of the natural game play, not a death penalty. As for the first use, I still completely agree. I hate it and its just annoying. As for how something like this would relate to being used as a death penalty, I don't really have an opinion. Exp loss, repair fee, weakness... meh whatever.
____________________________
I also want double eyepatches, to increase my pirate bravado.
#6 Jul 05 2009 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I don't really care. It was never that big of a deal when I was playing WoW but maybe other MMOs made it extraordinarily hard to keep up with repairs. It's also a good gauge of how much your group sucks.
#7 Jul 05 2009 at 9:11 PM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
Quote:

As opposed to the time sink used in other games? Either/or there's a penalty. Equipment durability is typically enough to keep you from treating death as a trivial thing without discouraging the average Joe from taking risks (solo) or learning new content (group).


There should be a penalty for death. And I don't like the exp loss penalty from FFXI.

I just think the whole repair/durability thing isn't enough to keep anyone from treating death as a trivial thing. I also think it is just a money sink added on because there isn't a good game economy in place.

Most importantly I think it just isn't 'Final Fantasy' enough to be in a Final fantasy game. (The developers did say they were creating the ultimate Final Fantasy)

It's not about arguing a death penalty here, just about equipment damage and repair. Something I think has no place in any FF. Much less the 'ultimate' FF.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#8 Jul 05 2009 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
I think the raise debuff you got in FFXI would be a good enough penalty on its own. Perhaps stacking if you died multiple times in a row.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#9 Jul 05 2009 at 9:25 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
It's not about arguing a death penalty here, just about equipment damage and repair. Something I think has no place in any FF. Much less the 'ultimate' FF.


It depends on how it's implemented, but general durability wear can be either trivial or a righteous pain in the *** for no reason. I was in a guild in WoW where one of our main tanks would end up with a broken shield within 40 minutes of attempts on a particular raid encounter because he was soaking so many hits. His durability loss form deaths only accounted for 20-30%...the rest was just general wear. The rest of his gear was in reasonable shape...but his shield was broken. Not a huge issue or cost, but a nuisance when you're trying to get some progression attempts in and 25 people have to stop while your main tank runs off to repair (or drop an expensive repair bot just for him).

I personally wouldn't mind either way, but I do see the point of the concept relative to the FF genre.
#10Izaacpaul, Posted: Jul 05 2009 at 9:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Totally agree.
#11 Jul 05 2009 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
Some of us would really like to be open-beta retards for FFXIV.

Just saying...
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#12 Jul 06 2009 at 4:08 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
This kinda thing is present in LOTRO and I hate it. Not only do you get the regular wear and tear - but you get a spiked version of it when you die. Money isn't that hard to come by in LOTRO but it still ****** me off when I have to pay out for equipment maintainance.
#13 Jul 06 2009 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
*
98 posts
I've never really been ****** off because of equipment repairs in wow or whatever. I think the most i've seen a repair was about 22 gold, but I usually have that back in a few minutes while i'm questing. I understand that it wouldn't make since in a FF game as well. If they bring back the resurrection sickness, I think it would be better off changed so you aren't an easy target and can get out of the way in case trouble arrives.
#14 Jul 06 2009 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
It depends on how it's implemented, but general durability wear can be either trivial or a righteous pain in the *** for no reason. I was in a guild in WoW where one of our main tanks would end up with a broken shield within 40 minutes of attempts on a particular raid encounter because he was soaking so many hits. His durability loss form deaths only accounted for 20-30%...the rest was just general wear. The rest of his gear was in reasonable shape...but his shield was broken. Not a huge issue or cost, but a nuisance when you're trying to get some progression attempts in and 25 people have to stop while your main tank runs off to repair (or drop an expensive repair bot just for him).


This. The problem I've always had with durability is that its maleffects are so skewed across different classes, but rarely is any balancing attempted.

Many tanks in WoW would shell out 20-50G on raid night (or more), because they got hit so much, died more often and spent the most time in combat. And yet, there wasn't a discount for repairing Plate.

Quote:
Some of us would really like to be open-beta retards for FFXIV.

Just saying...


Lol, right?


ANYWAY.

I don't want to see it. Yeah, death needs to have some penalty. But, its costs have to be low enough that it isn't a pain in the ***.

With durability, the cost of death is gil. But, it doesn't end there. They'd have to implement some kind of chart or alert system that showed when your gear was getting low on durability, so you actually noticed and remember you have to repair. When you are in the middle of doing something, this can get VERY annoying (at least to me).

In FFXI, the cost of death was time and exp. WAY too much of both, especially when together.

So, maybe the cost of death should just be time, but not that much? Or in ascending values with a cap?

Like, your first death in an hour gives you res sickness for 30 second. The second 1 min. The third 2 min. 5 min, 7 min and a cap of 10?

However, being Raised would lower the cap by an amount that scales to the level of the spell. So, the highest tier one could turn 10 minutes into 1-4 minutes, or something?

Also, the rez sickness will have a double effect--your mitigation won't decrease, but you won't be able to gain aggro for 30 seconds to a minute after rezzing. Your damage will be pitiful. You'll have lower health and mana. Your spells will be half-power at best.

As long as the aggro protection is there, I think this can work well. There are few things more annoying in a MMO than rezzing just to be killed a second later... Especially if there are res timers.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#15 Jul 06 2009 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*
230 posts
I'd love to see some semi-hefty cost for dying but one that lets you get right back into the fray. If you die, lose XP, and then someone resurrects you, why shouldn't you be able to go right back into combat? Doing that too many times can be a serious detriment to your character. I think rez sickness is a bad idea; I'd rather see losing past effort than *current* time. The difference is, when you lose gains you got in the past, you can keep playing right away to make it up and there's no TIME SINK. With rez sickness, you're waiting around for a few minutes, just because you have to.
____________________________
Future FFXIV Player
Anguish - 80 Death Knight (Retired)
Vor - 60 Warlock (pre-BC) (Retired)
#16 Jul 06 2009 at 7:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
At first I hated the equipment durability system (before I tried it).

After trying it I noticed that it's not so bad after all, but I still would prefer something else. Won't be that huge of a disappointment anymore if XIV will suddenly have it though.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#17 Jul 06 2009 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
46 posts
I am not crazy about it but if this is implemented it better not be unaffordable. if economy in FFXIV is anything like XI it would be horrible, farming for month to get an armor and then farming the rest of the year to keep it fixed doesnt sound good XD
#18 Jul 06 2009 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
103 posts
if you implement it correctly to where it takes a bit or make fragged armor just occasionally lose a stat or something or lower the stat and to get the full stats on the armor you need to have it "repaired" it would be considered a consumable and you wouldn't have all the starving crafters out there. I would actually love the idea of having a blacksmith/goldsmith/cloth/leather/wood crafters imbue weapons/armors with temporary stats that say wear within 48 rl hours. Like a bonus, food type deal
#19 Jul 06 2009 at 8:08 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Quote:
I would actually love the idea of having a blacksmith/goldsmith/cloth/leather/wood crafters imbue weapons/armors with temporary stats that say wear within 48 rl hours. Like a bonus, food type deal


FFXI did this... kinda? 10-50 uses on a piece of gear that gives pretty decent bonuses like +attack or +hp. But imo it wasn't implemented very well.. I wouldn't mind if they tried again!
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#20 Jul 06 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
I'd love to see some semi-hefty cost for dying but one that lets you get right back into the fray. If you die, lose XP, and then someone resurrects you, why shouldn't you be able to go right back into combat? Doing that too many times can be a serious detriment to your character. I think rez sickness is a bad idea; I'd rather see losing past effort than *current* time. The difference is, when you lose gains you got in the past, you can keep playing right away to make it up and there's no TIME SINK. With rez sickness, you're waiting around for a few minutes, just because you have to.


Yes, but you also have to think about the circumstances one may die in. Are you "leveling," farming, fighting a boss, in an instance running between two points, at level cap, etc.?

Are you in a group? Did they all wipe, or just you?

How much "experience" did you lose? Will you get that back in the 4-5 minutes you are playing without rez sickness?

Will you stop loosing exp at cap? Will some other effect replace it? Because, otherwise, players may have to actually go farm exp just to maintain it. But, if they remove it, death no longer has any penalty.

Plus, losing exp when dying is INCREDIBLY annoying in situations where you:

A. Expect to die.
B. Are running between locations with powerful mobs, trying to avoid aggro.
C. Are disconnected, either in combat or near aggroing mobs.
D. Are playing PvP content (assuming that there isn't a separate penalty for those deaths).
E. Just goofing off with friends.
F. Accompanying more powerful friends to do things well beyond your skill level, just for fun.

With A, it is clear why. You are actually going to do something with the expectation of losing your hard work.

With B, it will eventually stop being an issue. But, before you get to a higher level, you can easily die many times when travelling between main locations. Such as running to Jeuno for the first time in XI (you get your Chocobo license at 20 and the main leveling area at that stage is there). To get there, you run through areas with level 40+ mobs. Dying 10 times (with near-full exp for that level) will bring you down to 19. There are few things as annoying as dropping below the cap JUST before you get to the location with a level-req. Same thing for the level 30 jobs (you need to get a Ruby before unlocking Smn, etc).

C is where it gets really annoying. It is one thing when you have a chance to get away. But a disconnect when solo guarantees an exp loss, and I doubt whatever you were going to kill would be enough to make up for it.

D. Obvious. You die a lot in PvP.

E/F. This is a big one, for me at least. I will often just go out without main goals and goof around. Like having naked races through high level zones. Or heading out in a skill-up party with LS friends, being 20+ levels below them in areas where they are fighting VTs, at the least.

I rather have the comfort of knowing my previous progress is saved, regardless of what anyone does.

Plus, think about if you got in a fight with a sibling or something. They could log into your account (if your password is saved, or they know it for whatever reason) and die 30 times next to a HP. That would bring you down 3 levels, at least, in XI's system.

I'll take time as a penalty over progress, unless the exp loss is TINY.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#21 Jul 06 2009 at 9:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,166 posts
as a death penalty, probably not a big enough deterrent on large-scale fights, and too big a deterrent on small-scale ones. it could be added but it wouldn't serve its purpose(protection against zombie tactics)

normal day-to-day durability loss would be both a) impossible to balance between jobs, and b) impossible to balance financially

a) impossible to balance between jobs

as stated before, how do you deal with the tank vs DD vs mage disparity in duability loss? do you make tank gear cheaper to repair?

ff lore kills that:

pld - tank - plate
war - tank/dd - plate
drk - dd - plate
bst - dd - plate(ffxi-only)
drg - dd - (SE can't make up their **** minds)

or

mnk - tank - heavy cloth(eastern+western)/light metal
nin - dd(tank in 11) - heavy cloth(eastern)/chain mail
thief - dd - heavy cloth(western)/light metal
samurai - dd - chain/scale mail
whm - mage - heavy/light cloth
rdm - mage - heavy/light cloth/light metal(has been as high as scale)

you'll notice i sub-divided heavy cloth between martial arts wear(eastern) and leather armor(western), FF's traditionally have not at least insofar as if you could wear eastern you could wear western(typically not the other way around though).

Bst and drg are special cases, bst was a heavy cloth until ffxi, drg has seen itself in every form - kain/tactics were plate, ff9 was chain/scale, ff7(i think, didn't have true armor)/ff11 were heavy cloth, khimari sucked and was a blu with a spear not a drg.

mnk was a tank up until ffxi(minus tactics but not TA), and is a tank in 12, since in the single player ff's HP is way more important than defense.

anyway, you always have tanks that are the same armor-class as some other dd job so you can't just make tank armor cheaper to repair because that still affects both a tank and a dd job, creating an imbalance when the dd job rarely has to repair while the tank constantly has to.

you've created a system whereby people are not playing a job they might desire to play simply because they can't afford to. this is what bolsters RMT. hopefully SE has learned from the "ranger fantasy xi*" days that making finances the primary balance of a job DOES NOT WORK. which ties into point b.


b) impossible to balance financially

you do not EVER want players to have to "farm" just to maintain basic effectiveness. to buy new things? yes, to restock consumables for major fights? again yes, to be able to help their friends with basic quests? **** NO.

as it stands now, I'm a max level ranger on ffxi. But, if you weren't a member of my linkshell, odds are you'd have no clue to that fact. I'm on ranger for 2 reasons... building an xp buffer, or some LS event where the amount of gil I'm about to throw away is worth it. durability expands this to ALL jobs.

the obvious responses to this are to make general activities generate enough money to cover repairs, create traits that lower durability losses on those jobs most likely to have high costs, or make jobs with high costs more valuable in activities so players are willing to do the farming necessary to keep that job up to snuff.

the first means you've created a penalty that...well...isn't a penalty. if general activities are gonna generate the money to do repairs, the only time anyone will even care about durability is for EXTREMELY long fights where your gear is likely to break before the fight is over.

the second, you've created an in-game system and immediately turned around and removed it... you never should have created it in the first place.

third... and the worst of the lot... see "ranger fantasy xi" note.

all the above assumes repairs will be handled by npc's, don't even get me started on player-driven repair systems.

*"ranger fantasy xi" few years back, ffxi had only 2 jobs that were required to use consumable items to function, ranger and ninja. SE decided, stupidly, that to balance ranger's massive outpouring of gil to fight, they should be the strongest DD in the game. In terms of damage ranged attacks got a bigger bonus from strength than any other attaks(twice as big in fact, this still holds true) AND ranged attacks ignored the penalty most hits suffered when used against extremely high level enemies(this has been removed). besides the fact that ranger was already the most accurate job in game(passive bonus of nearly +50 accuracy just for being that job). Anyone familiar with MMO's can guess what happened. Since rangers(being the best at ranged attacks) were unquestionably the most damaging DD jobs, the solution to any difficult fight became to "throw more rangers at it."

one of the limiting factor of ranger was supposed to be that ammuntion in ffxi is a consumable, once it's shot, it's gone(the other is that ranger is one of few jobs with no, 0, zero defensive abilities, the old glass cannon). This was an open invitation to RMT to allow people to use their wallets to supplement their ammo supply, this is when ffxi RMT really took off.

long story short, ranger got nerfed into oblivion(subsequent de-nerfs and updates have alleviated this somewhat) and, hopefully, SE learned that you can't use money as a balancing tool
____________________________
"A women almost bit off her husband's ***** while he was making pancakes in the morning." ~ Lewis black-Anticipation

A Complete History Of The Soviet Union Through The Eyes Of A Humble Worker, Arranged To The Melody Of Tetris~~http://bit.ly/aPlx8C

Miklar Lorent ~ http://odinseinherjar.guildwork.com/
#22 Jul 06 2009 at 9:52 AM Rating: Decent
41 posts
I think I'd prefer the resurrection sickness. Maybe you get a 30% penalty across the board which is reduced 1% per minute. If you die mutiple times, you get multiple sicknesses each on their own timer and the effects are multiplied. So if you die and die again ten minutes later, the penalty would be (100-30)%x(100-20)%=56%, so a 44% penaly at that point which would improve relatively rapidly.

Of course with my usual caveat, there's nothing special about those numbers, it could be 50% (crazy harsh) or 10% reduced by half a % every minute. Just so long as it's a real penalty and incurring it repeatedly because you are fighting something beyond you should be an exercise in frustration. Maybe even 10% minus .5% per minute on the first death, 15% minus .5% per minute on a new sickness if you already have one, 20% if you already have two, etc.

I'd much rather sit and wait, or take an expensive late game potion, to offset the death penalty than waste time recouping experience I've already earned once. I also think death should be more common as levels increase, but be less of a hassle, but that's the D&Der in me talking.
#23 Jul 06 2009 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,017 posts
If we have to have some kind of penalty for dieing I would chose to have to repair over losing xp ANY DAY. I say bring on the blacksmiths because when people fear dieing because they will lose xp they dont want to do anything or help out much at all. which in turn makes the game boring and uneventful.
____________________________
-Character Name: Djinnrb (old)
-Server: CaitSith
-Jobs:BLU75 BRD75 THF67 PLD 44 DRG 44 DNC39 NIN37
----------------------------------
-Character Name: Lightpalm
-Asura
-Jobs: WAR54 WHM53 RNG35 SAM70 RUN70
----------------------------------


http://ffxiv.zam.com/wiki/FFXIV_Leveling_Guide

Mithsavvy wrote:
Everything Square Enix does puts out a vibe that says, "I was programmed by someone who read C++ for Dummies after obtaining my degree in MIS"
#24 Jul 06 2009 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
*
230 posts
Quote:
I think I'd prefer the resurrection sickness. Maybe you get a 30% penalty across the board which is reduced 10% per minute.


Fixed.

Edited, Jul 6th 2009 2:06pm by Kharmageddon
____________________________
Future FFXIV Player
Anguish - 80 Death Knight (Retired)
Vor - 60 Warlock (pre-BC) (Retired)
#25 Jul 06 2009 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
*
81 posts
Short answer: no

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Running back to town, constantly checking equipment, delays in parties for repair, and (if XI is any indication) the expectation to have multiple pieces of the same equipment so parties are not forced to wait while one members returns to town for repair. You know the elitists of XI will demand it.
____________________________

#26 Jul 06 2009 at 10:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
737 posts
I really, really, really despise repairing equipment. To me it's just a time sink. In no way does it advance a character. And does crafting skill help repair the worn armor? If so it means adventurers have to take time out to level crafts. If no crafts are needed to repair it's a plain time/gil sink. I love crafting and fishing however I've met those who do pure leveling and never touch crafting or fishing.

To each their own but there is no benefit to equipment durability, just frustration. The soloers would eventually quit do to always maintaining equipment and enough gil to keep said equipment in shape.
____________________________
#27 Jul 06 2009 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
I just think the whole repair/durability thing isn't enough to keep anyone from treating death as a trivial thing.

It is a money sink in WoW, it isn't supposed to be a death-deterrent.

And why do people act as if death is regarded trivially in WoW? The time sink of a corpse run alone, is enough to make people avoid death as much as they can (The equivalent in FFXI, would be resurrection sickness).

And you CANNOT simply throw bodies at a mob or boss until it dies, due to two reasons: NPCs in WoW healing to full HP if they aren't in combat, and that the instancing mechanic (where all bosses are found) will not allow people to re-enter the instance as long as combat continues... You cannot resume a fight after dying until every member of your raid is dead and the boss has healed himself.

Am I arguing that the WoW system is good? No. But come on, it's silly to keep misrepresenting it.

Edited, Jul 6th 2009 2:22pm by Karelyn
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#28 Jul 06 2009 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
41 posts
Kharmageddon, you want the only penalty for death to be mild inconvenience for three minutes? I don't really have a dog in the fight, in other FF, you cast raise and having low HP was the only real penalty (or you cast Raise2 and got full HP), I'd be fine with that. The topic seemed to be looking for some adequate punishment to make death nontrivial. Maybe the 30% is too high?

It just seems to me that if the point is punishment, but you don't want to lose gold or xp you've earned, than the resurrection sickness has to have significant duration. From what I've heard, three minutes is basically the rest of the current fight and the time everyone else rests before the next one.
#29 Jul 06 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
*
230 posts
a 30 minute penalty is too harsh. even at the 20 minute mark, with your resolution, I'm only at 9/10 of my total contribution to the party AND I'm 10% easier to kill. I don't think a time penalty should be enstated at all. Instead, monetary/exp/whatever other regainable metrics should be lost and I should get right back to what I was doing after dying. TIME-SINKS are way worse for any game than resource sinks.
____________________________
Future FFXIV Player
Anguish - 80 Death Knight (Retired)
Vor - 60 Warlock (pre-BC) (Retired)
#30 Jul 06 2009 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
41 posts
So you're in favor of no death penalty, aside from the wait to be revived? Sounds fair enough to me. Please look at the rest of those comments though, I acknowledge 30% might be too much. Would 10% tapering off be acceptable?
#31 Jul 06 2009 at 1:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,416 posts
Durability status in FFXIV? IDK because at least a few things need to be addressed..

The fact that any extra gear I'm carrying with me can be damaged even if I am not using them or don't have them equipped? = NO.
- If it so happens that I need to bring an extra set of gear for a different stance, I should need to have it equipped before it starts taking damage.

The fact that once gear is broken after getting to 0/70 status? = Debatable.
- Going from <Benficial Gear> to <Basically Unequipped Slot> is too hard of a hit. Even a broken shield should be used to some degree. If nothing else, a portion of the stats should remain so that I don't become completely useless. Just MHO.

Being in combat at all will cause all equipped items to gradually lose durability, regardless of whether any damage is taken or dealt = NO
- In WoW, 10% durability is lost on all durability gauged items after death. This is based off of the maximum durability and not the remaining durability. It's definitely not player friendly and while proper scaling can be debated here, we need to remember that it's a game after all.

Remove or address the items I've mentioned, as well as create a economy that allows you to maintain the items and I won't have a problem with it. Durability as a penalty for death would be okay, as long as it is implemented properly.

Edited, Jul 6th 2009 2:19pm by sixgauge
____________________________
Abort, Retry, Fail?
TeamAFK!

/equip Head Knowledge
You gain the latent effect of Power.
#32 Jul 06 2009 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
*
102 posts
I'd rather not have any durability/repair system in any game I play. It doesn't benefit me as the player in any way, doesn't add any fun either, just annoys the **** out of me.
#33 Jul 06 2009 at 4:40 PM Rating: Decent
*
169 posts
I really detest the typical item wear/damage mechanics, and will be fairly unhappy if they make their way into FFXIV. As others have said, all they do is waste time (mostly group time) and inconvenience players.

That said, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to some form of item damage, but it'd have to be both more focused and add tactical depth to the game.
#34 Jul 06 2009 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
******
22,699 posts
Durability is worthless. It doesn't make you try to avoid death, it's just an "oh, durability is low" thing that can be very inconvenient at times. (See WoW tank example above.)
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#35 Jul 06 2009 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
**
424 posts
To Karelyn:

you said
Quote:
It is a money sink in WoW, it isn't supposed to be a death-deterrent.


In my OP I said:
Quote:
Bad idea, just used as a money sink in games.



Then you said :
Quote:
Am I arguing that the WoW system is good? No. But come on, it's silly to keep misrepresenting it.


Umm... How was I misrepresenting it? I said THE EXACT SAME THING.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#36 Jul 07 2009 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,075 posts
Harsh death penalties have no place in my FFXIV, among many other crappy aspects of XI. :<
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#37 Jul 07 2009 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
sscearcev wrote:
as a death penalty, probably not a big enough deterrent on large-scale fights, and too big a deterrent on small-scale ones. it could be added but it wouldn't serve its purpose(protection against zombie tactics)


Games where durability loss has been implemented also implemented other ways to prevent zombie zerging. Typically, this was done by making it so that raise-type spells could not be cast while in combat. (WoW had one notable exception to that rule in the form of the druid's combat rez, but it came with enough restrictions that it didn't allow for zombie zerging.)

Quote:
normal day-to-day durability loss would be both a) impossible to balance between jobs, and b) impossible to balance financially


That's not true, either. Using WoW as example again (only because it's the MMO with durability loss that I'm the most familiar with), plate cost more to repair from broken, but was far more resilient. A plate wearer could take far more hits before their armor was broken than a clothie, meaning that if a clothie was taking the same number of hits as a plate wearer, the clothie's armor would require more frequent repairs.

Quote:
a) impossible to balance between jobs


Also not true. Generally speaking, the lighter the armor you wear, the more tools you're given to not get hit. Whether that comes in the form of stuns/roots/snares or high evasion, there are tools in place to offset how much durability damage your gear takes, and it wasn't even for the sake of balancing durability issues; it was for the sake of viable solo play with all classes.

Quote:
as stated before, how do you deal with the tank vs DD vs mage disparity in duability loss? do you make tank gear cheaper to repair?


The disparity usually wasn't all that bad. Tanks would tend to pay more, but not so much more that they would quickly bankrupt themselves. The tanks who paid significant sums of currency to repair their gear in WoW were the ones in very, very good raid gear and it was not uncommon for guilds to help offset tank repair costs from a pooled fund. Joe Average tank in 5-man and early raid content didn't pay that much more than anyone else that it was an issue. The idea behind durability loss in general but particularly durability loss as a penalty for death wasn't to kick players in the teeth for having failed...it was more a subtle reminder at the end of a session that, "Hey, if you sucked less this would have been cheaper."

Quote:
anyway, you always have tanks that are the same armor-class as some other dd job so you can't just make tank armor cheaper to repair because that still affects both a tank and a dd job, creating an imbalance when the dd job rarely has to repair while the tank constantly has to.


Exactly. So you don't try. "Tank" armor in WoW (again, familiar example only) didn't cost more than dps plate armor to repair. It cost the same as equivalent iLvl dps armor. There are four tank classes in WoW; 3 wear plate, 1 wears leather. In a game with durability loss, tanking tends to simply cost more. That's just the way it is, and it's no more unfair than jobs that rely on consumables (ie. RNG and NIN in FFXI). The main thing is that it's not a huge discrepancy in cost between tanks and other jobs.

Quote:
you've created a system whereby people are not playing a job they might desire to play simply because they can't afford to. this is what bolsters RMT. hopefully SE has learned from the "ranger fantasy xi*" days that making finances the primary balance of a job DOES NOT WORK. which ties into point b.


Or, you simply don't append such an enormous cost to repairing gear that it absorbs a substantial amount of funds to keep on top of it.

Quote:
b) impossible to balance financially

you do not EVER want players to have to "farm" just to maintain basic effectiveness. to buy new things? yes, to restock consumables for major fights? again yes, to be able to help their friends with basic quests? **** NO.


Well, relative to the other alternatives I've seen (particularly around penalties for death), I'd rather front a relatively insignificant amount of currency to repair my gear than have to form a party and go "farm" a relatively insignificant amount of xp to regain the level I lost that is preventing me from equipping my gear in the first place.

Quote:
as it stands now, I'm a max level ranger on ffxi. But, if you weren't a member of my linkshell, odds are you'd have no clue to that fact. I'm on ranger for 2 reasons... building an xp buffer, or some LS event where the amount of gil I'm about to throw away is worth it. durability expands this to ALL jobs.


No, because SE made the mistake of putting consumables for RNG and NIN in the hands of the player economy instead of controlling the price through NPC vendor sales. The idea of all-things-crafted worked in the scope of FFXI. It doesn't work in the scope of a game that's marketed as being accessible to everyone, casual or hardcore. One of the first things an MMO developer needs to do when tuning a game for casual accessibility is look at all of the things that represent a non-voluntary ongoing cost to players of a particular build and put them in the hands of an NPC. As example only, if SE were to decide they wanted to turn around and make FFXI truly casual-friendly, ammunition, all spell scrolls, and ninja tools would be available in infinite supplies from NPC vendors. You can't have a class/job reliant on a particular consumable and then make the cost of that consumable subjected to supply and demand and overall market fluctuations if you want that consumable to remain truly accessible.

Quote:
the first means you've created a penalty that...well...isn't a penalty. if general activities are gonna generate the money to do repairs, the only time anyone will even care about durability is for EXTREMELY long fights where your gear is likely to break before the fight is over.


Exactly. Repair costs only add up if you fail repeatedly. For the average Joe, it means they can afford to die from time to time to a silly mistake, untimely disconnect or other "oops moment" and not feel like their progress from the past half hour has been reset.

When approaching an MMO designed to appeal to the full spectrum of players, you have to consider the impact that a death penalty might have on that entire spectrum. A penalty that makes a hardcore player sit up and take notice is going to seem overwhelming and excessive to a casual player because it's going to represent a much larger setback in terms of what they could hope to accomplish in a session.

Quote:
third... and the worst of the lot... see "ranger fantasy xi" note.


RNG weren't nerfed because they were generally OP. They were nerfed because the playerbase in general couldn't wrap their heads around the strategies necessary to be successful in CoP missions. Consequently, if you were trying to get a spot in most CoP groups as a DD and you weren't RNG or SMN, you were SOL. Because RNG was easier than SMN to pick up and level (ie. you didn't have to go around and earn your avatars), people who lacked the cookie cutter jobs to get into CoP (specifically, Promyvion Holla/Dem/Mea) started flocking to RNG to level. It created an enormous class imbalance, and that is why RNG got nerfed. STR did absolutely nothing for RNG who used gun/xbow, and the majority of RNG used those over bow because they were a far more accessible weapon. SE's nerfs did the trick...players abandoned RNG in droves (even the ones who leveled it because they actually liked the job as opposed to leveling it because it got them a spot in a mission party). Ham-fisted class balancing at its finest.



Edited, Jul 7th 2009 8:32am by AureliusSir
#38 Jul 07 2009 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
131 posts
I would rather take a xp loss then a durability loss, I just don't like the idea of having to run to a NPC if you are in the middle of something then your armor goes out and you have to run back to town to fix it.
#39 Jul 07 2009 at 8:11 AM Rating: Decent
****
9,017 posts
If equipment doesn't degrade, then it should be binded to your character, thus effectively creating a viable crafter market and prevents oversaturate the economy.
____________________________
クリスチアン・デュシェーヌ
栗栖治安
#40 Jul 07 2009 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Parade wrote:
I would rather take a xp loss then a durability loss, I just don't like the idea of having to run to a NPC if you are in the middle of something then your armor goes out and you have to run back to town to fix it.


It depends on how quickly the durability is tuned to decrease. Games like WoW and LOTRO, you'd have to be really, really bad to have to run back to town because your gear broke. Generally speaking, if you were to stop by and repair your armor every time you swing by a town, you'll never even see a warning that your gear is on the verge of breaking. You could go for literally hours of questing/grinding without having any problems with gear breaking...unless you were dying a lot. In over 3 years of playing WoW, I could count on one hand the number of times I had to run back to town to repair while questing/grinding solo. Even in group content, you'll figure out long before your gear breaks whether or not it's worth remaining in a party and a smart player learns to bail before it becomes an issue. Just like you wouldn't stay in an FFXI xp party where you had already died 3 times in the first half hour, people would tend not to stay in a WoW party if they had wiped 3 times before the first boss. Raiding was a whole different issue, but even then you'd have to be working some pretty intense progression to be seeing gear breaks on a regular basis.
#41 Jul 07 2009 at 5:00 PM Rating: Good
******
22,699 posts
Quote:
RNG weren't nerfed because they were generally OP. They were nerfed because the playerbase in general couldn't wrap their heads around the strategies necessary to be successful in CoP missions. Consequently, if you were trying to get a spot in most CoP groups as a DD and you weren't RNG or SMN, you were SOL. Because RNG was easier than SMN to pick up and level (ie. you didn't have to go around and earn your avatars), people who lacked the cookie cutter jobs to get into CoP (specifically, Promyvion Holla/Dem/Mea) started flocking to RNG to level. It created an enormous class imbalance, and that is why RNG got nerfed. STR did absolutely nothing for RNG who used gun/xbow, and the majority of RNG used those over bow because they were a far more accessible weapon. SE's nerfs did the trick...players abandoned RNG in droves (even the ones who leveled it because they actually liked the job as opposed to leveling it because it got them a spot in a mission party). Ham-fisted class balancing at its finest.


Just chiming in to say that's wrong. Rng nerf had nothing to do with CoP. Final Fantasy's motto was "Throw more rangers and black mages at it until it falls down." Ranger was nerfed because they had a ridiculous advantage over everybody. The ranged attack formula is completely different. They get fstr twice as easily and only get half the level correction. Str didn't do as much for slugshot as it did for sidewinder, but str was still extremely overpowered for rng. Against HNM mobs rng would easily out-damage everything.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#42 Jul 07 2009 at 5:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
I hate gear wear. Its drives me nuts in lotro.
____________________________
That was no hemroid doctor. That was an alien hoobajoob
#43 Jul 07 2009 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
The One and Only Deadgye wrote:
Just chiming in to say that's wrong. Rng nerf had nothing to do with CoP. Final Fantasy's motto was "Throw more rangers and black mages at it until it falls down." Ranger was nerfed because they had a ridiculous advantage over everybody. The ranged attack formula is completely different. They get fstr twice as easily and only get half the level correction. Str didn't do as much for slugshot as it did for sidewinder, but str was still extremely overpowered for rng. Against HNM mobs rng would easily out-damage everything.


As someone who invested 3 of my 4 years in FFXI as RNG, I believe I'm adequately qualified to say that's simply not the case. RNG were about burst damage. In drawn out fights we had the benefit of not having to consider a mana pool...a benefit that came at the expense of ammunition. That's not intended as a commentary on damage, simply staying power. The cost of the job is what kept people from leveling it in droves because before CoP, there was no benefit to leveling RNG "part way" (ie. to 30 for Promyvions). What CoP taught people, however, was that Barrage + EES in a Promyvion Mea/Dem/Holla boss fight brought sick burst damage to the party, and if you could build on that by bringing even more RNG and had a bit of luck, Anima wasn't even something you had to think about.

You can talk about fStr all day if you want, but the bottom line was that Str factored so trivially into the damage of a crossbow/gun RNG that it wasn't worth considering. If you wanted to fork out millions of gil or spend months camping Western Shadow for an E-Bow, I'd sort of expect that it would be well worth your while in terms of performance, wouldn't you? Fact of the matter is that E-Bow RNG were a rare breed around the time RNG got nerfed, particularly in the NA community. End-game RNG were typically toting Musketeer's Guns (+1 version if you could find one and afford it) for HNMs/gods and Othinus' Bow for xp/merits (both for versatility and because the ammunition was typically < 1/4 the cost of silver bullets).

Slugwinder damage came at the expense of accuracy. Misses were very, very common even if you were running a cookie cutter gear setup. So common, in fact, that when I played (and people still did skillchains), chaining with an RNG was a dice roll, and if you were talking about setting up for a MB and there were two other DD in the group that were able to create the necessary chain effect, the RNG was usually WSing solo and letting the more accurate WSes build the chain.

RNG up to that point had gone 3-4 years without any concerns. It wasn't until CoP and the community position of "RNG or SMN for DD or ****** off" that it became an issue. Pre-nerf, melee DD in sky could put up numbers just as big as me. Thieves could put up huge numbers and I can remember a DRK in one LS I was in busting off a 2k WS (forget which one) while trigger farming in Sky and I couldn't manage a 2k Slugshot with a Culverin + Berserk on bees in S.Gustaberg.

SE never heavily nerfed classes based on the damage numbers. They nerfed classes based on the population numbers. When everyone and their dog started leveling DRG/SAM for Penta-Thrust spam, DRG got obliterated with the nerf bat and stayed down for years after. When everyone started leveling RNG/NIN for CoP, RNG got clobbered. That's just the way SE worked their class "balance". It wasn't about who was doing what...it was about how many were doing what.

I can remember having to spend 2 hours farming for every 1 hour I spent in an xp group just to cover ammunition, food, ninja tools, and Silent Oil/Prism Powder. It wasn't until I started pushing most of my crafting professions to the higher levels that I finally found myself in the position of being able to earn a decent income while rarely having to leave town. Other classes had to farm for this or that..melee spending big gil on gear had the benefit of being able to sell it back if they decided to take up another job later. My gil was gone. To then take that job and destroy its performance because suddenly after 4 years the devs did a double take and decided RNG were OP in end-game is a bit of a naive assessment. CoP broke the players so the players turned to RNG burst damage. Consequently, SE turned around and broke RNG, too.
#44 Jul 07 2009 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
I have no opinion on whether I think SE should put something like durability in, but I think some of you are missing the underlying purpose of WoW's and many other MMO's durability systems. The 25% one from dieing and raising at a soul keeper or the 5% or so from just a simple death is designed on the surface as nothing more than a death penalty, but the actual durability system has a second purpose... money extraction. WoW puts out a ton of gold per character from quests etc. and the only reason there isn't hyper inflation is because of constant gold fee represented in durability costs, as well as NPCs that have stuff that people actually want to buy whether for crafting or other things.

To complement said system they also have craft + soul binding stuff so they can also remove gear from the game so we don't have crafting items go well below their intentional value. They are economy based gil sinks that merely serve as deterrent for death as well. In an MMORPG you can't have everything you want and gear does decay over time in real life especially if used constantly so even in principle it makes sense it needs to be repaired from time to time. I think some of you are jumping to some extreme conclusions on a game dynamic as nothing more than a determent but they often time have other purposes. Do I want it in FFXI? I don't know, depends on what they feel the alternative is, because FFXI economy and questing system was screwed up from the start when they had no easy way to remove gil and gear from the game to keep the economy healthy.

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 1:19am by croythegreat
#45 Jul 07 2009 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
**
424 posts
I still think the whole idea of having equipment repair is very 'un-Final Fantasy'.

I can't recall a single FF game where we had to repair gear.

Given how common this mechanic is in modern MMOs, however, I can see the possibility of equip repair being a part of FFXIV.

It still just seems very outside the ethos of Final Fantasy.
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#46 Jul 07 2009 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Shazaamemt wrote:
I still think the whole idea of having equipment repair is very 'un-Final Fantasy'.

I can't recall a single FF game where we had to repair gear.


I can't recall a single standalone Final Fantasy where SE had to balance an economy, or where raising a dead party member in the middle of combat left them weakened for 5-10 minutes, or where you lost xp for dying, or where you had to do specific quests to raise level caps, or so many other things that were incorporated into FFXI. Sometimes there have to be concessions made to accommodate the unique nature of an MMO relative to a standalone game.
#47 Jul 07 2009 at 10:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
In FFXI I would have preferred a durability loss to the xp penalty, especially because of how stagnant the crafting system became. Giving equipment durability would have kept crafting going.

But that just goes to show how crappy the crafting system was, and I'd rather they fix it outright than put a bandaid on it. I'm not opposed to durability on certain items, but on hard to get stuff, it would really suck.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#48 Jul 07 2009 at 10:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Kachi wrote:
In FFXI I would have preferred a durability loss to the xp penalty, especially because of how stagnant the crafting system became. Giving equipment durability would have kept crafting going.

But that just goes to show how crappy the crafting system was, and I'd rather they fix it outright than put a bandaid on it. I'm not opposed to durability on certain items, but on hard to get stuff, it would really suck.


Well...not really. Durability on gear, if implemented the way any other MMO I've played does it, would do little/nothing for crafters. Gear is repaired by specific NPCs and if you let the durability on a piece of gear reach 0 (aka broken), it just means that the gear doesn't provide your character with any benefit until you get it repaired. It's not like broken gear is broken forever; it just basically becomes the equivalent of not having anything equipped in that slot until it's repaired.
#49 Jul 08 2009 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
**
424 posts
Quote:

I can't recall a single standalone Final Fantasy where SE had to balance an economy, or where raising a dead party member in the middle of combat left them weakened for 5-10 minutes, or where you lost xp for dying, or where you had to do specific quests to raise level caps, or so many other things that were incorporated into FFXI. Sometimes there have to be concessions made to accommodate the unique nature of an MMO relative to a standalone game.


True, and fair enough.

I still don't think equipment durability really feels like a Final Fantasy game though. It's not like equipment durability was created for the benefit of the MMO genre, it existed in offline games before. The only reason I can validly use 'it doesn't feel like Final Fantasy' is because the developers specifically said they were attempting to create the ultimate Final Fantasy, and that urge led them to make it a MMO.

Quote:
where you had to do specific quests to raise level caps

well I can remember Final Fantasies where you had to do that. Limit breaking was not unique to FFXI, just the fact that you had to do it so many times with a single character.

Quote:
where SE had to balance an economy


Well that's a consequence of a MMO, as you pointed out. Yet SE did it in a way that still felt like Final Fantasy, even if it wasn't the best way to manage an economy. The auction house, notorious monsters, missions, and even the avatar quests were all VERY true to the final fantasy ethos.

Quote:
raising a dead party member in the middle of combat left them weakened for 5-10 minutes

Perhaps not for 5-10 minutes, but raise usually left the party member weakened in most Final Fantasies. (by weakened I mean not at full hp, and easily killed by the next enemy attack if healing was not applied immediately, and without protect/shell etc.) In an offline game with its faster pace and single player focus, the time down from a raise would HAVE to be much faster than an MMO, but it left a character weaker nonetheless.

I agree with you on the XP loss, it was just a bad death mechanism. I never could grasp how I suddenly would lose a spell or a weapon skill from being KO'd. But the idea of limit breaks and a raise penalty never really bothered me as being alien from Final Fantasy. It was just made more severe in the MMO version of FFXI.



Edited, Jul 8th 2009 5:02am by Shazaamemt

Edited, Jul 8th 2009 5:04am by Shazaamemt
____________________________
Administrator Kaolian:
"Quote it correctly or don't quote it. That's called "how people get banned"..."

Actually it's called "Libel"... and only if it is fabricated, but hey, you are the admin.

AureliusSir the Irrelevant:
"They're on a tangent, but they aren't off topic."
#50 Jul 08 2009 at 9:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Well...not really. Durability on gear, if implemented the way any other MMO I've played does it, would do little/nothing for crafters. Gear is repaired by specific NPCs and if you let the durability on a piece of gear reach 0 (aka broken), it just means that the gear doesn't provide your character with any benefit until you get it repaired. It's not like broken gear is broken forever; it just basically becomes the equivalent of not having anything equipped in that slot until it's repaired.


Then I'm not talking about doing it that way. Make durability mostly a feature of crafted items, and they break if you die in them enough, and it would help crafters.

On second thought, it wouldn't do much good in FFXI either way, as people would just have one more gearswap macro-- a "die in my underwear" macro.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#51 Jul 08 2009 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Kachi wrote:
Then I'm not talking about doing it that way. Make durability mostly a feature of crafted items, and they break if you die in them enough, and it would help crafters.


A better alternative to putting a necessary function in the hands of crafters is to simply make crafted gear bind on equip. It's a bit short sighted to think that saturation will never begin to affect an MMO if the gear that exists in the game today is just repeatedly cycled through the system, and I think that short sightedness may have bit SE in the ****. Something that has contributed to the longevity of the MMO that shall remain nameless is the fact that with each new expansion, crafting gets a substantial number of new additions. I think by now SE realizes that they have to keep content as dynamic as possible so that the veteran players stick around and new players joining contribute to population growth rather than simply maintenance.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 24 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (24)