Durability may be in. But is it wanted?

Edit needed.

Also, I agree with everything Sokina said. Durability could be awesome, it's just a mechanic that's been poorly implemented so many times that we're all jaded to the very idea.

 

I do see both sides of the coin and I dono if anyone would agree but I believe I tried to be civil to both parties.
Anti durability: Not fun, tedious,against exploration (3rd one can be argued against)
Pro Durability: Realism, that feeling of survival/ against all odds.

Im shifting between both bandwagons seeing both pro's and cons. I like the feeling of "against all odds" but I also Like it to be Fun, less tedious.
I have my own opinions but most of mine depends on implementation rather then assuming.

 

Please stop posting so passive aggressively. I know you're playing it off as if you're the victim, but I'm pretty sure that you're aware of how your style may cause the discussion to become more heated.

Anyway, my opinion of real realism as opposed to faux realism is that it's basically the difference between Dwarf Fortress-style simulation, and Civilization-style. Dwarf Fortress does its best to accurately and realistically model as many forces as it can, while Civilization uses abstraction and less realistic forces to emulate a world. A realistic repair mechanic would have you disassemble the item manually, replace each part that's been damaged, and then reassembling it. This would be an interesting mechanic. Instead, most repair mechanics consist of a bar getting low, and the player hitting a button that uses up widgets to raise the bar back up. I'm pretty sure you'd agree that it's not terrible interesting.

 

Durability in any game has always been a huge pain in the ass.

 

Seriously, both of you. Unwad the panties.

 

Terraria, a weak pickaxe can mine nearly all the world, without getting a dent.

Durability SHOULD be added, but not as bad as Minecraft's system.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't like durability either as I mentioned immediately below I was just commenting specifically on healing for that part. You are correct in saying it can be accepted as part of the game if done well. However, as you said, it's also not very fun. Maintenance and upkeep of equipment are more tedium than enjoyment for me.

 

This. I remember in Minecraft I'd hesitate to use my Diamond Pick even though I knew it was very efficient because I didn't want it to break. This despite that it has over a thousand uses. Durability (like hunger, imo) is a needless distraction and should be relegated to an optional game mechanic for added difficulty and not be enabled by default.

 

I don't think durability SHOULD be added. Simply because its annoying and it isn't interesting.

IF they add it, then they need to ensure that the weapon doesn't just break when its durability runs low, that you can actually repair your items and make it optional. They aren't going to go out of their way to make a durability system an incredibly intensive affair where you have to replace certain parts and such, it will most likely be a bar that runs low as you use a tool, and if thats the case, I want the option to turn it off. Like the hunger bar.

 

One thing I would love more is context.

This went from a its not in thing, to a it maybe in thing. The hows and whys would sway a lot of how I feel about it. As a general rule I can only say I find the mechanic tedious because its simply not implemented well in other games. After cooling down a bit I'd like to try and explain why now.

Take minecraft. After you have so many diamonds.. replacing a diamond pick is more an act of keeping one in inventory then any sort .. gameplay addition. Its just something to monitor and breakup gameplay for two seconds when it breaks.

A reasonably smart player for example if its in Starbound, will keep top tier stuff on the ship, and two sets of mearly decent equipment on hand. (Assuming item loss on death) Then monitor the situation and just switch around when something breaks. That.. doesn't add much fun to me. It takes up space and adds a choir. It also limits when I will break out that awesome gun with the unique ability or great damage I find, to boss fights.

Yes the latter adds some amount of thinking ahead which some enjoy. Not being reckless with your good stuff and managing resources. I just don't find the tradeoff worth it in terms of fun. It seems to encourage a set play style to coping with a mechanic instead of a more free playstyle.

Which seems counterproductive when they are adding so many things to do and ways to play into the game.

 

I'm... not being passive aggressive, though. I'm mostly just disagreeing with those who say there's no reason to like this. Sorry if you misinterpreted.

And victim of what, anyway? There's nothing in this thread that that could even apply to, as far as I know. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm Texan, so English is at best my 1.5th language.

Oh, geez, Dead Island. My meat cleaver breaks after I use it to... cleave meat... like ten times.

 

Perhaps satisfy both parties? Durability does not = dead gear
But less effective gear.
example:
Helmet +3 resistance against blunt
Helmet at 100% Dura is 100% effective
Helmet at 50% = its a +2
Helmet at 0% = +1
The bigger and better weapon/armor the more its worth to repair the item
Just because its at )% does not mean its destroyed but rather not as effective as a fully reped item.
It will still keep that survival appeal to others but you wont have to worry about never seeing it again cause you still have it.

 

Another thing that occurred to me just now: People mention that it's "realistic" for something to experience durability degradation, but let's be honest: this game takes place in the far future. At that point, I would think that tool / weapon design and nanotechnology would render durability a thing of the past. With that said, if we're really set on durability then I think it should have some interplay with the printing system: printed items aren't durable / indestructible like their "hand-made" counterparts and therefore can break, unlike an item found as a drop or in a chest.

 

most people have been saying their isn't a great argument for durability and that it has ruined some games for them... as you said it's opinions. I find it crap and pointless to add those kinds of things also but I understand why people like it I just really don't and I never would have thought that durability was even considered in this game... this is the first thing that has made me a little less excited(but not very much) for the game. As I have said before in this longgg discussion I wouldn't mind it horribly but its not something I value in a game.(this will literally be my last post cause I'm bored of it and feel people are just arguing for the sake of argument)
PS if its for 3d printed stuff by all means that makes a ton of sense to me if not no thankyou

 

This is actually a really good idea. Dark Souls handles Durability similar with making things less and less effective. And so do Oblivion, Morrowind and the Bethesda Fallouts.

And... So agreed. I really, really did like dead island. Well Ill say wanted to like dead island. Since the game itself was just uber fun but the total lack of permanence of the weapons made no logical sense after a point. I totally understand weapons breaking when flinging them haphazard into zombies but I don't know how so many balsa wood baseball bats and blades made out of freaking pig iron must of been on that island.

Perhaps it's a subtle jab at consumerism culture causing the overall decline in product quality... ... Naaahhh.

Oh dude. Texan hi five~

 

Seriously; do not implement Durability unless you know exactly what you are doing in design.
There are so many things that can go wrong with such a system. So. Many. Things.

Most of the time, it's just an utter nuisance that adds nothing to the game. If implemented badly, it can break the game.

 

The first and last paragraph of the post I quoted earlier are entirely passive-aggressive. And the last sentence quoted. At the very least, you need to be far more aware of how your posts may sound when you're online.

 

Unless the durability loss can be repaired, I'm pretty much 100% against it. If it becomes an option, I'll only play with it turned off.

However, as long as items can be fixed, I'll probably play with durability on. I just don't ever want to question myself on whether I should use my best gear or not simply because eventually it's going to break. I don't want to be forced to run around with several different armor sets and an arsenal of weapons simply because my gear may end up breaking, or feel like I need to run around in sub-par quality gear because I don't want my high quality gear to wear itself down when I'm doing routine adventuring on lower level planets.

Durability that I can repair though, I'm okay with. If I find a godly weapon, I shouldn't feel like I need to stash it away and rarely use it just because it has a durability bar. It turns what should have been an incredibly fun aspect of the game into something stressful and annoying.

Ultimately though, I'm just thankful this game is moddable. Regardless of what the devs decide to put into the game, someone out there will mod it to the way that will best suit my playstyle.

 

There are ways to make the player "adapt" (I wouldn't really call switching to a different weapons because the old one broke adapting) that aren't durability. Resistance types, for one. I, for one do not see a problem with a weapon not being removed from your person. After all, you found it, why not keep it?

An actual reason would be a reason that is backed up by an argument stating an explanation why the feature in question is benefitial to gameplay.

So far, I've seen variants of this:

- It's realistic

- It's should be in there

- It's a good moneysink (True, but there are other methods that are far less annoying. For example, the Reforging from Terraria)

- It adds to the survival theme (Questionable the survival theme in starbound is barely visible to me apart from the already optional hunger, which has less of an impact on gameplay.)

- It provides challenge (It really doesn't, all it does is force you to have more items in your inventory.)

- It forces the player to adapt (Questionable, it forces people to switch weapons. Which by itself is not bad, if weapons were easily replaceable without a stat loss or other drawback, which I'm assuming the printer will have. However, randomly generated weapons are not the same. For example, you only have a assault rifle and a shotgun of similiar power, but you really dislike shotguns for their short range. However, you end up using the assault rifle too much and it's unusuable, even if just temporarly. Now you're stuck with a weapon you don't like.)


While on the other hand, we've got arguments like these:

- It limits exploration (You have to go back at some point that is not of your choosing.)

- It hurts trade (People will pay less for items that will eventually have to be paid for again to repair them.)

- It will be harmful in boss fights (Your best equipment might break down on you mid-fight, forcing you to go the inventory screen while there's a giant monster eating you.)

- It's tedious (After all, it is extra work to replace your gear constantly.)

- People will use mass-produceable gear instead of the best equipment (Very often seen in games like minecraft, after all the risk of losing the item is there.)

- It's fun-killing (Personal opinion, however a feature shouldn't be fun for one part of the playerbase while annoying the other.)

Also, most of the anti-durability people are willing of compromise, thanks to the 3d printer giving the option of seperating geniune items and printed items.


They've also been very friendly up to a certain point, which probably came from some of the downright hostile posts coming from the pro-durability group. (Lack of actual arguments, maybe?)


I hope this makes my view on this a bit more clear.

 

I see. For the record, though, those were actual questions, not hidden jabs or anything (well, maybe the last sentence was, I don't think it started out that way though), but I can see how they'd look that way.