Item Durability and Repair

[Madoc]

Alright, I think I understand now. To have a repair system that wouldn't be tedious it would probably have to be paired with other mechanics and be made in great detail and become a main focus of the came. Since all of this would take a long time to do, there's no point adding it as a half-baked mechanic.

That really depends on specifically what's involved. If it's mostly changing some numbers and clicking on some icons then it would probably be very easy to do. Things like that usually take longer to design than implement. I could probably implement all aspects of a typical item durability system in less than half an hour. Unfortunately we have issues with the design. If it's something that involves complex animations, effects on physics, graphics, AI or whatever else it rapidly becomes an indeterminate amount of time and issues.

These days many people consider RPGs to mean "game with stats" and often if you take away the stats the games have less depth than many action games. RP stands for Role Playing, it has nothing to do with stats whatsoever, those come from PnP games where dealing with numbers was necessary to support the mechanics. Now we have computers to deal with numbers and mechanics for us. We are deliberately avoiding numbers and aiming for the most natural possible methods of interaction, we're kind of trying to make a point I guess.

 

[Komuflage]

These days many people consider RPGs to mean "game with stats" and often if you take away the stats the games have less depth than many action games. RP stands for Role Playing, it has nothing to do with stats whatsoever, those come from PnP games where dealing with numbers was necessary to support the mechanics. Now we have computers to deal with numbers and mechanics for us. We are deliberately avoiding numbers and aiming for the most natural possible methods of interaction, we're kind of trying to make a point I guess.

I agree that an RPG should not necessary have stats, however a "true" RPG for me, is a game that is very immersive (and ofc there are a lot of other things, like a rich story, interesting world and lore etc, but not necessary all of them) and for a game to be truly immersive, you need to include some things that might be considered tedious or not streamlined.

A game were all I do is dungeon crawling and killing mobs feels much more like a Action/Adventure game. Using Skyrim as an example; it feels like a action game with some "rpg" elements (Levels and such)
Even in a game like cod you play a roll as Srgt 'whatever' in your quest to save America once again, but it's still not seen as a RPG even if you're technically playing a Roll. There need to be more to the game than just that.

A game were I'm free to do pretty much what I want, (within the limitation of a game) that I can sink hours into without even realising it, can be a really immersive RPG.
Just the fact that I Can go to town, but there is no need for it, kinda kills the point of it.

Now I stated this before, and I realise most people are against me on it. But things like; Taking a trip to a nearby town to restock on supplies, visiting the local smith to repair my sword, I found after that epic boss fight 3hours ago, taking a trip to my house to store all valuables I've found and so on. Is "necessary" to create a immersive rpg experience

In a game were I can pick up everything I find, never needing to repair, or stock up on supplies or any other "Tedious" things, then what's the point for the devs to sculpt beautiful city's, create interesting, but "unnecessary" NPCs, and so on. When all the player will do is go to a NPC, fetch quests, then spend a few hours in a dungeon, go back to get new quests and so on. Why not remove the tedious time consuming "mechanic" of fetching quests.
Instead as soon as you completed one, you could just get a new one on the spot. That way you can stay in dungeons forever.


For instance take the game Guild wars 2, there are 5 playable races in that game, Each race have their own huge and beautiful city, you can clearly see that the devs spend a long time creating it.
A town like Divinity's Reach, that really fell "alive" there are tons of completely unnecessary npcs, but still they got interesting things to say, there is also an orchestra and tons of other pois.

But what's the point of visiting these citys, when there is a central city (hub) in the middle of the map, it's also the smallest city, so moving from the bank to the trading post and craft stations (the "only" necessary things in a town) take the smallest amount of time compared to the other citys.
Therefore you'll see loads of people in this city, (lion's arch) but all the others are Ghost town.

Same thing goes for all the "zones" there is no real point in walking through a beautiful zone. Because, if I just want to play a fun dungeon, all I need to to is teleport to the dungeon entrance. play the dungeon, teleport back to Lion's arch, sell my loot, and then teleport to a new dungeon.
They removed "all" the tedious bits, and left is just dungeon crawling and teleporting to sell. you can even buy a item to summon a merchant, traiding post or bank, that way, you can just play dungeons for ever, without ever having to see the 99% that's left of the world.

Imo, when considering a mechanic, you should compared them in just; Realism/Fun, but also, Tedious/shallow.

There are some things that can be to tedious to include; Eating, drinking and sleeping is one that devs often skip since it's to tedious.
But if you remove to much of these "tedious" task, the game become shallow.

Now you might be able to pull of an amazing immerive rpg, without any of these "tedious" chores, but I've personally never played a game that have done that before.

 

[fluffydino2000]

I'm definitely with @Komuflage on this one, if there is nothing to break up the action, nothing to keep you immersed in playing the role, then it's just a glorified action game. If you have to go to town to prepare for an adventure and return to receive a reward from the quest giver it creates opportunities for choice besides how to fight. If you have to choose between buying some more arrows or improving your sword and whether or not you want the money or the truth, you must assume a role. Without choice, it isn't really a role playing game. The more variety of choices and the more choices you make all add to the fun of playing a role imo. The best choices are the ones, that hopefully this game will present frequently, where you decide how to go about achieving something (think deus ex). But equally important are smaller choices like what colour to dye your armour or whether or not to give money to a beggar.

Equally important again is cause and effect, if giving the beggar money doesn't do anything, then it's a cheap choice. If the player knows that the game might have some kind of effect but it turns out it doesn't, then it isn't a cheap choice.

But when it comes to repairing and maintaining items, if the effect isn't interesting and there is no real choice in it then it is just boring (different to tedious). If you pretty much have to just pay to repair and improve stuff to progress properly then it isn't a good game mechanic. But if it is dynamic enough to remove necessity and be a choice based on cost and effectiveness/playstyle, then it is a great game mechanic.

The difference between a good and bad hunger system, for example, is one that just requires you to eat/drink enough food/water and one that still has necessity but that gives buffs and debuffs depending on what you eat. I say this in a very black and white kind of way, but if drinking coffee is a choice due to short term high and then after that a slightly longer low, then it isn't a boring item. If instead you just had to drink the coffee and it acted in the same way as bread, then it may as well just be a money tax.

So I guess I agree with the decision not to implement the feature. But I am also sad that a more advanced repair/improvement mechanic cannot be implemented due to the loss of choice.

 

[Scarecrow]

While i have always been minor against unnecessary tedious things, i can definitely see Komuflage's point here. It does make the world more real and alive in many cases, and it becomes more immersive. I guess it comes down to finding a balance of the amount of said "tedious" things as well. For instance, fast travel: I've always been against it in open world games (like Sui Generis, TES, Fallout, etc) as it takes away the adventuring and immersion. Food/thirst/rest are things I've usually enjoyed because it gives you even more reason to explore that shack or village, and hunt those deers, etc.

However, i know that if every single thing were supposed to be as realistic and immersive as possible, it would become a tedious game for me. And that is bad, when a game becomes generally tedious. Perhaps some things should be "tedious" for the sake of immersion. But things need also to be more "shallow" or "unrealistic" for the sake of fun and gameplay.

 

[Komuflage]

But when it comes to repairing and maintaining items, if the effect isn't interesting and there is no real choice in it then it is just boring (different to tedious). If you pretty much have to just pay to repair and improve stuff to progress properly then it isn't a good game mechanic. But if it is dynamic enough to remove necessity and be a choice based on cost and effectiveness/playstyle, then it is a great game mechanic.

So I guess I agree with the decision not to implement the feature. But I am also sad that a more advanced repair/improvement mechanic cannot be implemented due to the loss of choice.

Personally, even if the mechanic behind it is boring.
Click Smith > Click Repair > Click item > Click Confirm > Done. It's still better than nothing.
It isn't very fun perse. But it ads to the experience.

Even combat is in it's core, just moving and clicking the mouse, as well as some buttons on the keyboard, things that, looking at it very basically is not fun.

When you're playing a game, you're basically only looking at a screen, watching the character move around. Now in order for this to be fun, you need player input. Ie pressing buttons.
If you would completely remove the necessity of pressing buttons, the game would play itself and it would be boring.
Now again, in order for it to be fun, you need to press the buttons, and the more buttons you press (to some degree) the funnier it gets.

Imagine if you play Dark souls, and the game target locks by itself, and move your character by itself, and all you would have to to is press the attack button, then the game would be considerably less enjoyable, than if you move your character by urself.

A lot of devs streamline their games, so they need less player input (QTE as a prime example) and even if what you see on the screen is the same, since it's not you pressing all these buttons, the game get less enjoyable.

Now I realise I strayed quite far from the original thoughts.
But the point is somewhat the same; The less you as a player do (to some extend) (even if these things you do is boring) the less enjoyable will the experience become.

 

[ZaratanCho]

But this is not always true, comparing the combat and the overall experiance to the repair mechanic(and the like) doesn't really work. Alot of things can make it so it is not just bashing monsters in dungeons. The "story" and such contribute hugely. It also is up to the player to a very high degree. People play GW like this because they don't care about immersion or experiancing the game as a whole(and immersing in a mmo is hard to impossible). They want to get more and level up as fast as possible cutting as many corners as possible and having better items and bigger numbers on them. They look on a game as just this. Things shouldnt be put in just to be there for 'breaking up the action' and play that "tedious" role, just as the opposite should not be forced. Some things should emerge naturally creating a somewhat balanced experiance.

Not saying I'm against anything exact at this point. Maybe i will give this repair thing a serious thought one of these days to Try and come up with a decent idea. Who knows what the team will come up with at some point. Something can be added later on after release even if nothing will be included until then. Nothing is certain, yet.

 

[fluffydino2000]

But the thing to consider there is that your taking time away from something fun to something boring. Imo this doesn't matter if you make the boring thing add to something else that's fun (i.e. a deep weapon improvement system like you described of demon's souls). But if the boring thing doesn't actually add anything (i.e. a standard repair system) it's kind of pointless. This is the point I was trying to get at in my last post. A choice counts as a player input just like a mouse click. So if a choice adds to something that's fun it's good. But if your choice is merely there to serve as another choice (let's say, watch game play itself with one handed weapon style or watch game play itself with two handed weapon style) then it's pretty pointless.

 

[Komuflage]

But this is not always true, comparing the combat and the overall experiance to the repair mechanic(and the like) doesn't really work. Alot of things can make it so it is not just bashing monsters in dungeons. The "story" and such contribute hugely. It also is up to the player to a very high degree.

Now this part especially "comparing the combat and the overall experiance to the repair mechanic"
The thing is, the repair mechanic, or eat mechanic or whatever, is a part of the overall experience.
I'm not saying that a repair mechanic perse is super important, but all these small things ads a lot to the overall experience: In Sweden (And I'm quite sure there is an equivalent in English, according to Google it's "Every little helps") we got a saying "Många bäckar små" (Roughly translated to 'Many small streams') which basically means that all these smalls thing, by itself irrelevant, will together create something meaningful.

So just having to go repair for the sake of "time-sinking" might seem pointless, but when you ad having to restock supplies, manage your inventory and so on and so on, it will ad to the overall experience.

Now ofc if BM fells that Repairing in particular seems to tedious, by all means, don't ad it to the game, just keep in mind that all these small things will help in order to create a memorable experience.

But the thing to consider there is that your taking time away from something fun to something boring. Imo this doesn't matter if you make the boring thing add to something else that's fun (i.e. a deep weapon improvement system like you described of demon's souls). But if the boring thing doesn't actually add anything (i.e. a standard repair system) it's kind of pointless. This is the point I was trying to get at in my last post.

If we put it this way, if we were to take time away from something fun for something less fun (not boring) would it be worth it then?
And if not, why not create a game were all you do is bashing monsters, since that is although arguable, the most fun part of a action oriented RPG.

On another not, forcing the player to take a trip to the town wouldn't be taking time away from something fun, rather it would ad time, although that time might not be as fun.

Basically, either we could have a 10H game with only fun content, or we could have a 15H game with much fun content, some less fun and some boring. (Now this is a very black'n white example, but I think you get the point)


Let's take the weapon improvements system from Demon's souls, since you brought it up
Perse the system was very boring compared to the fun parts.
You went out to a level to kill a certain type of mob, get the crafting mats you wanted, took it to the smith, and upgraded the system.
They could have removed the part were you had to find the mats, and just make it so you payed the smith a certain amount of souls to upgrade your weapon. That way you could spend more time with the fun stuff (progressing through levels) but then the upgrade system would be really shallow.

 

[ZaratanCho]

but all these small things ads a lot to the overall experience

Well everyone should know this much. ;D

When i played arcanum there was a certain cave in which there were enemies that destroyed your weapon after a very few hits and i had to be careful and wait, traveling a pretty long distance to repair and go back and repeat(though i found ways to deal with them, but my class was kind of easy and i had some luck). When i think about it makes some sense to get your weapon damaged when hitting some enemies even destroyed, but the repairing not so much. Even if it was a bit annoying i won't say i wish it wasn't in the game.

But in this case as i see it a simple(standart) damage/durability/repair system will not fit and will not make much sense.
Maybe having a small limit where the weapon is still repairable but after repair it reduces in effectiveness(someone suggested something like this i think) and the limit does not reset. And breaking weapons to a state where they can't be repaired should be possible and happen, but not often, just against some 'special' enemies. So there will be "repair" but will not be something you will have to do very often(or at all if you don't want to and just get a new weapon). Special weapons and artifacts can have higher limits or/and resistances.

 

[Komuflage]

But in this case as i see it a simple(standart) damage/durability/repair system will not fit and will not make much sense.
Maybe having a small limit where the weapon is still repairable but after repair it reduces in effectiveness(someone suggested something like this i think) and the limit does not reset. And breaking weapons to a state where they can't be repaired should be possible and happen, but not often, just against some 'special' enemies. So there will be "repair" but will not be something you will have to do very often(or at all if you don't want to and just get a new weapon). Special weapons and artifacts can have higher limits or/and resistances.

Maybe you're thinking about this? " If the tip gets bent a bit, take it to a smith and he can heat it up and hammer it straight again. As mentioned before it wont be in mint condition, the metal might be permanently damage, hence it will bend more easily now."

And if a weapon would completely brake (although rarely) the only way to fix it would be, as Madoc mentioned: To melt it down and re-create it.

And ofc you always have the option to just get a new weapon, no one is forcing you to repair.

 

[fluffydino2000]

Well yeah, it's all about balance. My post was assuming that the repair system would be pretty much just talk to smith, pay money, wait. Which is boring. But add something a tiny bit interesting and it's completely worth while. The collection of materials is interesting, in the same way that the choice of improvement is. But there's no way that it'd be interesting, or a good mechanic at all, if all you did was just spend souls for a linear progression which you have no control of (i.e. pay to repeatedly sharpen increasing attack with no other options).

The argument that less interesting mechanics in conjunction with one another are more fun is true though. Even if they are all completely boring, it shifts focus the focus away from the individual boring features and turns them all into one big interesting feature. Trying to optimise your boring tasks in terms of money or time is in itself quite fun. And then trying to avoid having to do these things is also part of gameplay. It removes the feeling of a gold/time sink by making it somewhat of a punishment for inefficiency. It's like a casual failure state, which is good.

However, whether this technique would work for sui generis is another matter. Since there won't be any crafting on release and there aren't going to be all that many one use restockable items (healing potions or arrows (you can pick them up)) it leaves very few of these mechanics to build into one big mechanic.

 

[ZaratanCho]

I don't really care about boring or fun, i don't look at it in such a way.

What if something like after a repeated use the sharpness(slash?) of the sword reduces gradually(slowly) and crush(?) increases naturally,dynamically(maybe). And maybe sharpening it with a whetstone can require you to actually do something, like a movement with the mouse or something similar.

 

[Parco]

And maybe sharpening it with a whetstone can require you to actually do something, like a movement with the mouse or something similar.

i dont think i would like that, wouldnt that be as annoying as the button smashing that are currently roaming the mainstream games like a plague? i think i would prefer just a standard animation (maybe some variations) after selecting the action.

 

[fluffydino2000]

Yeah I think we're are a long way from making any crafting mini-games engaging. I honestly think fine motion control will be required before crafting mini-games will ever be interesting. Unless of course, you want to sacrifice on realism, at which point you can do anything with a mini-game. Making things in reality is such an organic and dynamic process. Mini-games tend to work better for stricter subjects, like lockpicking, where the mechanics are actually mechanical and can be simulated properly.

 

[ZaratanCho]

Not button smashing of course, i was thinking something more in the concept of having to drag the items from a container or another inventory and not click and release. But this was just really quick things of the top of my head so it can be a bunch of nonsense. I have no shame, haha.

Besides this not crafting and something you won't do often.

 

[Parco]

ah, i see what you mean now, thought you ment: going into a set animation and you move the sword up, down and sideways on the whetstone until its sharpened, similar controls to how it was in dead space 2

Spoiler

before the last boss battle, when you stick the needle in your eye using the mouse

the drag and not drop might work well but i still think selecting an option then a animation starts will be best.

 

[Madoc]

I think perhaps what I said was misunderstood. However I disagree that these things contribute anything unless they are evolved far beyond clicking on a button. You should choose to travel somewhere because there's a meaningful interaction to be conducted there, not be forced to do it regularly.

I can't think of much fiction I've become immersed in (whether books, games, films) because of things like characters releaving themselves. Yeah, people eat and defecate, with some frequency, but the fact in itself is not very interesting. Characters may be eating as part of setting a scene but something else is going on, not the eating itself. I fail to see how constant repetition of these tasks could effectively contribute to any kind of story or role. What we have taken into serious consideration is food affecting your physique, that's kind of interesting. Eating because you have to seems pointless and tedious unless it drives content or presents a significant and relevant challenge. These seem like difficult things to pull off without significantly changing the scope and direction of the game. Procuring your next meal is not what we have in mind as the difficult challenge your character must overcome.

Combat can definitely be fun in itself but it is also interesting because of its consequences, danger and the driving you to improve your character and so much more besides, it's central to gameplay in most games because that really works. Where's the challenge in having to click a repair button? Where's the fun if you just have to do it again and again rather than for some specific purpose? Ideally even combat should be optional.

We have a lot of ideas about what's fun and what isn't and different members of the team have different ideas, but the core one that we all share is that it's fun if you want to do it. Is solving a puzzle fun? If you have to in order to get further, then no. If you decide to do it because you think it might give you an edge, then yes. It's also actually rewarding that way.

This all needs to be put into the proper context too. Our general intention is for every interaction to be meaningful and deliberate. It should be obvious by now that we definitely don't want a game where everything is as convenient as possible. You will be doing things that out of context might seem tedious but you'll always be doing them for different reasons and because you've chosen to.

We think we've done a pretty good job of identifying what would actually make a game fun for us. We're extremely critical of games and generally very dissatisfied with them. We carefully analyse and try to capture those rare elements of games that we actually enjoy, the why we enjoy them. Throwing features in and generally copying stuff for the only reason that other (successful) games do it is definitely not part of our process. There's a lot of subtle conditions to making something fun that are not evident.

 

[ZaratanCho]

it's fun if you want to do it

This all needs to be put into the proper context too

On most points is exactly how i see it (as in most if not all of your posts, this is why i am so 'excited' about this project)

Some of the things i said were going beyond speculation and in the context of what has been said in the thread so far. As things seem to go well and in the direction i want them to (I think i understand your ideas and core 'philosophy' quite well, my biggest "concern" is the writing i guess), i most of the time speculate since my lack of detailed knowledge about the game and everything surrounding it limits me. This is the reason i don't go in dept and too serious in my comments. ;D

A little discussion doesn't hurt though, you never know what might pop up. ;D

 

[Komuflage]

similar controls to how it was in dead space 2 before the last boss battle, when you stick the needle in your eye.

We have a spoiler function for a reason.

 

[Parco]

i forgot fixing it now, srry for all the lives i just ruined