Jump to content

  •  

Equipment breaks system


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

Poll: Equipment break system (67 member(s) have cast votes)

What should be down about how equipment breaks? (must read Notes before answering)

  1. Add item quality (46 votes [68.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 68.66%

  2. Add one or more items in a degrade tree (3 votes [4.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.48%

  3. Other, read in comments (4 votes [5.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.97%

  4. I don't know (6 votes [8.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.96%

  5. Leave it alone (8 votes [11.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.94%

What priority is this?

  1. Very important, make everything else wiat (3 votes [4.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.48%

  2. More important then Attribute/Combat (3 votes [4.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.48%

  3. Less important then Attribute/Combat (38 votes [56.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.72%

  4. I don't know (4 votes [5.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.97%

  5. Not very important, get to it eventually (19 votes [28.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 28.36%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Korrode

Korrode

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 417 posts
  • LocationMelburn, Strayamate.

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:21 PM

EL's equipment breaks system is pretty much the most terrible system ever.

Worst case scenario in EL is this:

1. Buy top end item for lotsa gc's.
2. Item breaks and is gone 2 seconds into the first fight you have.
3. Be sad n mad.

A couple of ways i can see to fix this:

1. Instanced equipment.
With instanced equipment each item can have a 'durability' of 10 (or whatever) and the break rate is the chance to decrement that number when hit. (I know people are already starting to think "repair system" but please don't discuss that here, that's a whole other thread, just operate under the assumption a repair system doesn't exist for now.)

- or -

2. Expansive "used" versions system
Having quite a number of 'used' versions/editions of every piece of gear that can break in combat, with the used versions having the same stats as the original. With this you can better gauge what new piece of equipment you need to buy next and have sitting in your storage because you have some indication of what's more likely to need replacing soon.
So you have like:
  • Cutlass Q10
  • Cutlass Q9
  • Cutlass Q8
  • Cutlass Q7
  • Cutlass Q6
  • Cutlass Q5
  • Cutlass Q4
  • Cutlass Q3
  • Cutlass Q2
  • Cutlass Q1
With Cutlass Q1 poofing on break.




The end result of each system is basically the same regarding breaks, except the Instanced system is much more expandable in regards to having things like "item enchants" and is more elegant than increasing the size of serverside list of items 10 fold.

What do people think? Anyone got any other ideas for a break system? etc.

If anyone is going to start talking about repair systems make sure you first think about the fact that in other games usually 90%+ of the equipment a player is wearing does not come from other players making it, here ALL of it can come from other players making it, this has HUGE impact on what a repair system will do to the economy. Don't be like "just put one in, WoW has it and it's cool".

* Sponsored Poll *
sponsored by LuciferX

NOTE: Implementation of this is more complicated then is seems with the current EL system. Either multiple items for each current items need to be created or a quality/condition system needs to be implemented. In both cases the client and possibly the protocol may need to be changed in order to be able to easily tell them apart in storage or trade. This little change could easily require 200-500 additional storage slots or force the players to get rid of worn/damaged items. The break rates would also need to be increased or the additional steps cause items taking that many times longer to break.

Edited by Learner, 10 October 2012 - 06:56 AM.
added sponsorship and Note


#2 Infamous

Infamous

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:41 PM

Yeah a repair system sounds cool, Guildwars has one too :P

But option 2: sounds good to have.

#3 Schmurk

Schmurk

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:55 PM

Sorry but I don't see any difference between both solution. Is it just a matter of name? Does it mean that different instanced weapons with different durabilities will all have the same name?
For both solution, it will be coded the same way on server side, which means having 10 different objects.
However, having an item that have the same name but different qualities can be problematic while trading sessions because you need to know what you buy.

Anyway, I find this very nice but I would prefer solution 2.

#4 bog

bog

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 172 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:07 AM

1. Provide cheaply available PK swords ( any you want ) from NCP/Shop at good honest value for some fast Mele
, almost like a Bronze, but with these PVP Swords, they cheap so they give same stats but break rate is high

2. Player made Weaponry should be where its at in terms of Durability. Its like going to NCP ( Dollar Store ) or Manu guy ( 480 Year Old BlackSmith )

Gives credence to skills of players and also allows casual gaming. Winner

#5 groomsh

groomsh

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:31 AM

View PostSchmurk, on 07 October 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Sorry but I don't see any difference between both solution. Is it just a matter of name? Does it mean that different instanced weapons with different durabilities will all have the same name?
For both solution, it will be coded the same way on server side, which means having 10 different objects.
However, having an item that have the same name but different qualities can be problematic while trading sessions because you need to know what you buy.

Anyway, I find this very nice but I would prefer solution 2.
Not really the same.
Option 1 means that (if i got Korrode correct) you have a "template" and all objects loaded into the game are physically an instance of the template.
Option 2 means that you have 10 different templates and you store only the ID of the template (current system).

Therefore Option 1 would need a lot of work to be coded (but as i said in other topics, it would make lot of other things possible) and Option 2 "only" needs to add the other X states of the object.
However with option 2 comes a lot more maintenance if you decide to add/remove/edit the item and of course some other tweaks (storage etc..).

So I would go for Option 1 definitely. It's a lot of work and testing, but i think it's the right way to go (if we ever want to have generated game load equipment, enchanted items with affects depending on player stats etc ...)

#6 Trojan_Knight

Trojan_Knight

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 122 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:46 AM

I'm still a little confused on the differences, even after reading all posts above mine.

Though I understand the basics. I think having a mutli degrading feature would be nice to have in game on items, but only if this would work in a manner in future that would allow ease of notice. eg: Cursor hovering over said item.

For long term, I would like this option to open new doors, or fix current ones, that would allow a more flexible and expandable game play for many different skills and players. So which ever that is, I'm for.

:)

#7 Torg

Torg

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 92 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:16 AM

I certainly like this idea... tending more towards option 1, but I'm with Schmurk in wondering how this would work in trading? The name of the item would need to be adjusted to show how degraded, or how many 'instances' of the weapon/armour remain.

#8 malameo

malameo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 82 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:47 AM

the trade window doesn't show stats like the inventory window, just name, that should be changed.. i suppose if the mentioned cutlass had 10 quality states, cutlass with just 3 'lifes' left would cost 30% of the market value, i like the general idea of items not 'poofing' unexpectedly

if accepted, how it should be done is not a matter of vote/opinion, it's just dev question; both options generate sto slot / memory / implementation problems, but the 1st one is obviously better for other things.. except some people will have 1k iron broad swords in sto (dvarium be teh new hydro!) or s2e if hydro is back. over time that crappage could reach 4-byte cap in terms of item instance IDs of all storages, so don't be cheap on memory ;P

#9 mistral

mistral

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 07:42 AM

How would those systems influence the market?

#10 Aislinn

Aislinn

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 337 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:18 AM

I also am leaning towards option 1 with the concern of "How will we know how many lives it has left?" and "Can we know how many lives it has left?".

#11 groomsh

groomsh

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 08:20 AM

View PostAislinn, on 08 October 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I also am leaning towards option 1 with the concern of "How will we know how many lives it has left?" and "Can we know how many lives it has left?".
In option 1, it would have to be printed together with other "eye-on" information.

#12 Korrode

Korrode

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 417 posts
  • LocationMelburn, Strayamate.

Posted 08 October 2012 - 10:23 AM

Regarding why there's 2 different systems: see groomsh's post.
The proposal of both really is only for the sake of Learner :P He's actually the person we need to hear comment from on which system.
I'm not completely sure how hard it would be for him to implement instanced items. Although option 2 is uglier it might be the only way to have this in the near future.

And yes ofc in trade windows the 'durability rating' or 'quality level' would need to be visible before completing trade.

#13 Schmurk

Schmurk

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 08 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

Ok, if the 1st option needs changes in the server code then I understand what you meant and I'm more for this option too.

#14 LuciferX

LuciferX

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:17 PM

I would think to program this Learner would have to make 10 items of each item.  Each item is likely a class with its own set of stats... that means

Upon Degrade, Item_level_10 with all its own stats would actually convert into Item_Level_9 with its own set of stats (which would match the previous item if you wanted the degrade to not affect stats)

that might be very annoying to code as you would need to make 10x the # of items in game....  Maybe an array can be used???

I would suggest

1. Make Tankel Work at a fair %
2. Make an "armor patch" or upgrade that takes the hit when you break the item.  then you can buy another patch or enhancement or whatever you want to call it.

#15 Korrode

Korrode

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 417 posts
  • LocationMelburn, Strayamate.

Posted 09 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

View PostLuciferX, on 09 October 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

that might be very annoying to code as you would need to make 10x the # of items in game....  Maybe an array can be used???
On the other hand, it's possible it could be scripted and be very fast and easy.

EDIT: Also, what you're suggesting can mean either equipment not breaking or it being very inconsistent. We do want equipment to break, we just want it to be at a reasonable rate that we're in as much control of as possible.

#16 Bat17

Bat17

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 340 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:41 AM

does "equipment" mean more than just Weapons/Armour? At the moment NMT protects your expensive weapon but not my expensive vial mold! No more Grief day save breakages on weapons but excludes tools!

Bat17

#17 Kaddy

Kaddy

    Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 347 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:01 AM

Keep this system as it is for right now, just tweak the current break rates a little bit.

Learner is afaik already too busy coding the stuff. We shouldn't add some more work at this point. That's how I see this situation.

-Kaddy

#18 scarr

scarr

    Advanced Member

  • Full Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:32 AM

Add item quality

Less important then Attribute/Combat

#19 kav

kav

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 58 posts
  • LocationOhio

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:48 AM

View Postscarr, on 10 October 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Add item quality

Less important then Attribute/Combat
;)

#20 Rabbitman

Rabbitman

    That Mod Guy

  • Full Member
  • PipPip
  • 219 posts

Posted 11 October 2012 - 11:30 AM

View Postkav, on 11 October 2012 - 04:48 AM, said:


;)

Additionally, I'd like to see it allow for 'pr0' mixers to create weps of varying quality. Higher level = higher chance for higher quality.

Edit: tried to quote all of kavs post but my phone is ebul Q.Q




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users