Item decay : how long before death ?

Hey guys,

My question/poll is related to mmorpg economy in a fantasy setting :
Imagine you crafted your best sword or armor set (crafting is easy, think Eve Online-ish easy, although you've got to find the resources, iron is common, mithril really isn't).

How long do you, as a gamer, expect to use your equipment ?

 

I vote for forever. I want to beat every developer with my mithril sword into submission when they make clunky, fake tool-degradation systems.

 

If you do make some durability system make sure you can top it off (repair the item)

 

As SparrowsNest wrote, no matter how long as long as i can repair it not just one, many times.

But, how long? Then you need a system.

For example: 1 sword gives +1 hit point to a Goblin. Then, this sword gets -1 durability point while doing this.

So, your items will have hit points and durability points.

IF the sword reachs durability ZERO, then, there has to be some way to repair it,

so you need to add repair cost to this sword and npc_location for repair.

Then your system will look like this:

ITEM
SWORD

HIT POINTS
+1

DURABILITY
-1

DURABILITY_AMOUNT
100

REPAIR COST
10

BLACKSMITHS
Daigo, Romtyr

LOCATIONS
Black Mountain, Underground Facility#1

So, i can use this sword to hit 100 goblins before the need to find a Blacksmith.

 

Your question is way too open.
Are you asking to implement a limited-use property on weapons? As in, after 100 strikes, it is broken?
Based on Diablo 2, with the ethereal weapon system, it was very poor and since the greatest weapons were rune-crafted, apart from javelins which had an inherent bug, most ethereal weapons were used and then discarded. Since none stuck until late game, they were just a blip on the radar.
However, it sucked when bosses would drop good loot and it happened to be ethereal. It meant, you had to farm it again to get something similar that could get repaired. Basically, a downer.

Are you asking about a repair system and how long before you need to repair it?
I honestly never liked this system since it is a money sink and most games do not implement it on use but on death. Which makes no sense. If you die a lot, you are too poor to repair and therefore cannot play anymore? That sounds dumb.

Are you asking in terms of how long before you upgrade it?
Games like Etrian odyssey or golden sun would have you immediately upgrade weapons in the next town over. Something I deplore because it adds a grinding element to it where the player must get money.
Other games had the upgrade curve so low that it barely mattered like Paper Mario.

As @Lurking-Ninja said, I would say forever and based on the player's liking. Warframe, a game I herald as one of the best of the century, has many different weapons of many different stats and damage and styles that honestly, the best weapon is often slightly better than another at doing that one thing. For instance, the rubico sniper is very good when modded at damaging eidolons but hardly anything else and does very poorly in crowds. The ignis is amazing for crowds, especially low levels but sucks at distance and higher level enemies.
Mind you, you don't need to repair it, just mod it and keep it fed with ammo.

That is a new paragon that many games do not use which is modular weapons with slight specializations.
In warframe, I still use my 4 year old weapon, the Tigris, which is one of the hardest hitting shot guns in the game. Almost nothing compares to it imho but I rarely see people use it (it is a common shotgun).

 

Yop yop,
(Sorry for my bad english, I probably didn't spot every mistakes)

I'm currently working on the game economy, especially on limiting hyperinflation.

My game needs money sinks, and one of them will be item decay (sorry Ninja =).
Item decay makes sense imho : look at the real world. Nothing is eternal (besides Bond's diamonds ;-)
I was wondering how far I could go into decaying equipment... Thus the question is open on purpose. It grants you the opportunity to voice your concerns and give ideas which is always a good thing

Of course, the system I planned contains a repair mechanic (hoping it makes you feel better Ninja ?), as it is a good money sink (there are better sinks, but this topic is about item decay, I won't derail the thread).
It does not contain hp and all, like TheKingOfTheRoad described, but the "breaking" is odds based (say 1/1 000, needs tweaking. I think odds based events aren't bad in themselves) upon strike and quality tiered.
This avoids item instantiation, maintenance and numerous requests to the database at the cost of creating more scriptable objets (adding to them the breaking odds value and 2 links (to lower and higher tier items)) and item swapping once in a while. I believe that's a good tradeoff.

The item created version is "brand new" tier 5. Player uses it to her content, once it fails the roll, player gets her warning, the item is swapped to the tier 4 version, the "still new", etc.. Note that only the tier 1 version looses stats.
Statistically (if my calculations are correct), loosing 2 tiers in a short span is very unlikely.
The layers exist to mitigate "bad luck" as well as the money sink excuse.
Repairing raises the quality by 1 tier for relatively small amount, by 2 tiers for a higher amount, you get the idea.

Item's destruction also helps economy... I envision it as a partial destruction, more like an automatic salvage of the item so you retain most of the resources you've spent into the fabrication. You just need to find the rest, and pay for the reconstruction.
But this would only happen if you do not take care of your stuff.

Ok, you know (almost) everything, let the discussion begin ^^

 

You can have items that decays and indestructible items.

So, it makes sense to pursue a quest or mission or match
when as a player you gain this indestructible item based
on xp, gold, diamonds or killing a big boss. Then, this
indestructible item has a big value. It will be not the case
if all the items are indestructible.

 

Okay, one thing I can tolerate when it comes to durability, and that is the system in the Divinity Original Sin 2: weapons only degrade when they are contact ones (melee, etc), and if it is used for other than fight: like ruining doors and whatnot.

And ruins seamless gameplay. And annoying. I, personally, don't play games with tool/weapon degradation systems other than the DOS2 (and it is _tolerable_, not enjoyable)

 

Here we are, talking about personal tastes besides thinking. Ruins seamless gameplay, lol.

Let's do some research besides: in Pac Man things where like....

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RichardTerrell/20120412/168429/Decay_Resets_and_Entropy.php?print=1

I will give CHESS as an example.
Your ARMY gets a LOT of decay in 20 movements
no matter how hard you try. And it's fun, seamless
gameplay.

@Lurking-Ninja i personally love a match when decay it's involved and finally
you get inmortal items.

THIS IS GOOD answer and adds depth BEFORE the personal taste part.

@Lurking-Ninja : "Okay, one thing I can tolerate when it comes to durability, and that is the system in the Divinity Original Sin 2: weapons only degrade when they are contact ones (melee, etc), and if it is used for other than fight: like ruining doors and whatnot."

 

Don't mind that OP asked for personal opinion.

Literally:

So what's your problem exactly?

Good for you. Vote for that. But it has nothing to do with me.

Oh, I didn't know that now you're the one who decides if an answer is GOOD or NOT GOOD. Next time I will ask your opinion on my opinion. (not)

 

@Lurking-Ninja Ok. Thanks.

 

Please guys, keep it civilized, we're here for a constructive conversation.

- Ninja is right ; I asked for opinions, tastes (sorry for auto-quoting my 1st post) : "how long do you expect to use your equipment ?".
- And King is right as well (my 2nd post) : "...and give ideas..."

No need to to fight for everybody's right ^^
Just share and I'll be happy

 

I agree. I will not quote @Lurking-Ninja again trying to explain some point telling him "this is good answer" before the "i personally hate decay system." part. It's a personal opinion. Chess it's good game with decay system and reset system (play another match). Personally then, i like both systems. Let's be happy, have a nice day.

EDITED:

I will elaborate.
How a Chess game has decay system?
The pawn tries to resurrect another piece
reaching the other side part of the board.
So, it's REPAIR system or RESPAWN system.
(you see the point already i was trying to explain
before going to the grass).

But maybe Chess Game Designer was just nuts.

EDITED#2:

For the life of me it's so good to see how your sword
brokes in the middle of a battle in first person and
you need to use your hands or switch for another
item while running from an horde of skeletons!

 

I was reading the link you provided.
It's a good read, I'll need to read it again.

As for reading, here's a different angle if you will :
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-build...-the-worlds-longest-running-mmos-426f8fd94f6d
Extra Credit's youtube chanel provides good videos, and even wikipedia has some points.

About chess, yep I've played a bit and I see where you're going.

 

Is equipment breakage a key element of the gameplay mechanics? Just as an example of what I mean by this look at The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild. Weapons have a limit to how many hits they could deal before they broke as a way to force the player to constantly collect and switch weapons.

If equipment breakage isn't vital to your gameplay mechanics (or to keeping the game economy balanced by sinking player resources) my general opinion is that gear shouldn't break at all. If you need a mechanic that forces the player to expend resources there are always others you can use. Skyrim for example required you to recharge enchantments.

 

If you want to avoid hyperinflation or inflation, just deflate the economy.
In real life, this is not a thing because of debt but if your game does not have a debt system, then you can just deflate it.

If you owe the bank 10k but you deflate the economy, that 10k doesn't deflate and becomes unpayable in the long term. Since our economies are based on debt (i.e. paying the interest only), we cannot deflate otherwise we will never be able to pay future interest.
In games, where there is no debt system, this works just fine! Many private WoW servers have a yearly 100 -> 1% deflation event where you lose most of your gold. So people just spend it or lose it. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Otherwise, you can simply use money sinks in upgrades. Warframe has that also where if you want to enhance a mod, you need to spend cash. I typically have between 0 and 1 000 000 credits (the currency) because I can farm it fast and spend it fast on upgrades.

 

Image this scene. Robin fighting vs. little Juan. (SPOILER AHEAD).

You start as Robin, Juan destroys your stick. Then you go to the water.
When you start the Match again, you don't have your stick anymore,
so you'll have to use your fists.

Then, if you want your stick again, you will go to the forrest and find
a new one.

In my PERSONAL opinion to have decay and lost items it's not that bad idea...

 

Has any game ever been better off by including a durability system?

 

Yes, check reality around you, it helps.

 

You forget one very important thing: games won't be automatically better if they employ reality. Games' most important attribute is if they are fun. Realistic != fun. Games with realistic features usually fun despite of their realism.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/645630/Car_Mechanic_Simulator_2018/

If we see this game, of course, i cannot use my hands to touch the wheel
or do realistic stuff, im using a mouse, in a virtual environment, not that
realistic and so on. It will be less fun if they make it VR and with too much
realism in 10 years more?

@Joe-Censored Is Car Mechanic a good example?

 

Job simulators aren't fun. They are interesting for 10 minutes at best. If you're not working in the field they try to simulate.
But we weren't talking about these. Or does this game use a durability system for their wrench and stuff? Why not? Reality or WTF?

 

Games can be for educational purposes too, healing, recovery and many other fields
that doesn't neccesary needs to be "fun".

If the GAME in theory needs a durability system, then try the durability system,
if it doesn't work, take out the durability system, easy, right?

This was the thread:

Hey guys,

My question/poll is related to mmorpg economy in a fantasy setting :
Imagine you crafted your best sword or armor set (crafting is easy, think Eve Online-ish easy, although you've got to find the resources, iron is common, mithril really isn't).

How long do you, as a gamer, expect to use your equipment ?

..............................


I expect as a gamer this sword to have durability system and i need to take
this sword to the Dwarf caves to repair it. And this needs to be not that
easy. So, this sword has more value.


Even more:

https://www.canstockphoto.es/piedra-excalibur-caballero-quitar-34486547.html

You can write an entire game based on Decay: It starts with the decay of an
empire,

Then you receive from your grandfather, a decayed sword.

Then you as the hero needs to get the Dwarfs for repairing this sword
and you can be 100 hours going trough a big dungeon to find this
Dwards that repairs your sword.

While you are going trough this dungeons, skeletons appears,
then you have only one shield, 2 potions, a book and the
sword you need to repair and another sword, that has a little
durability.

When you lose 50 times against this skeletons, you will try
to improve your combat skill, acrobatic and for sure everything
possible, if skill system.

BUT, you can have the durability number in there....oh, that
adds too much emotion now...

 

If it is not fun, it is not a game. Okay, maybe technically, but it is not a good game. Maybe an educational application or a health-care application or "many other field application", but not a game.

If you're designing a game, you should design the game, you should make the game, not the game make you to make it. Whatever it is in there, you put it there, not the game itself. If it does not work, if it pure grind, if it is boring, if it is not fun, then you failed. Not the game made you bad decision, you made it.

And that's okay, that's your personal opinion. And perfectly fine. I haven't argued with that. I have argued with this:

Reality usually is not fun. Reality usually is grindie. Obviously you need to find a sweet spot, where you draw the reality-check line and it is somewhat different for everyone, but saying that reality is making a game better is a false statement.

This is not realistic. This weapon-smith probably already died by hunger because of the very low number of customers can reach him to repair their equipment.

So, I made a mistake again and answered in this thread with the ever-fluid reasoning-mess in it. I should have known better.

 

@Lurking-Ninja please continue, you look like Unity Compiler when i write some script
without thinking and starts trowing errors.

"This is not realistic. This weapon-smith probably already died by hunger because of the very low number of customers can reach him to repair their equipment."

Maybe the weapon-smith has many customers already in an underground city?

About the discussion over fun and reality, grinding, data and now decay, i've found it too fun.

About if it's not fun it's not a game or it's not a good game, it depends what fun is to you,
then fun it's subjective. I don't need to give examples of this. Do i?

So, fun it's subjective. But many people can agree, and we every aday agree or not agree, about what's fun and what's not. Then, reality it's constructed this way. It's called from some places
"The lattice". And maybe it's not controlled by an AI like in the Matrix movies.

Then, finally, i've wrote above "Look at reality" not to "emulate reality 100% carbon copy".

I agree reality it's not fun when you see in the news that Elephants are being extinted.

So, reality it's agreenments or not agreenments. Then a game it's constructed
by the same reasoning. Sooner or later, your prototype will need more players than
you, then you'll need others agreenment about what a fun game is to play it more
than 5 minutes.

I don't see the messy logic at all in looking at reality or using a durability system
or not using it.

Anyway, you made the thread come back from the deads. Hoorai.

 

I think it's necessary to have both. Some people like crafting new weapons a lot or scavenging off of what we find, but there are also people who just want to smack things with a sword. Honestly, most of us are both, and giving us both would be the best bet. Have most weapons degrade over time, but give some option to make certain items immortal. In an RPG setting, a magic potion seems fine.

In Breath of the Wild, I spent my first few sessions exploring and playing some dungeons, using whatever I found laying around. After a while though, I decided to head straight for the master sword and power it up all the way. Now I have the option of playing with whatever sticks or rusty swords I find along the way and using my wits and skills to survive, but also have the trusty unbreakable master sword for when I want to just rampage through a camp like a bloodthirsty madman.

 

@newjerseyrunner Im googling Breath of the Wild, Zelda game, i see. Thanks. Looks cool.

Going back to Item Decay:

The first time i recall in game decay (not item alone, entire simulation decay), i was thinking a little, was in the 1st. Sims game 20 years ago.

Then, if you listen to the designer, Will Wright, in some video he was telling how he was obssesed looking at how reality works to do the Sims game.

I cannot find the video now, but...let's listen, maybe we learn more
about Item Decay:

And it was surreal when you saw your little creatures in bad state and you had the neccesity to help them.

I didn't played Stardew Valley yet, but i understand it has decay system too.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/413150/discussions/0/405694115216200906/

SO, ITEM DECAY it's important to me now.

 

Yes. And this was a good question.

 

If people were after reality they wouldn't be playing video games.

No one would want to play Battlefield if you had to go through a 9 week basic training tutorial. No one would want to play a fishing game if you usually played all day and caught nothing. No one would want to play a NASCAR game if 99% of the game was soliciting companies to sponsor your car. That's reality though, reality is usually boring, and boring isn't what people want from their video game time.

 

I agree. Look at reality as inspiration and simplify it to make it a game.

Hey, it's good idea a 9 week basic training tutorial!

The NASCAR part i like it too. Really good ideas.

So your problem with Reality is pacing.

Do the same stuff with fast pacing and it's a game?

@Joe-Censored
"No one would want to play a fishing game if you usually played all day and caught nothing."

Yes i will play this game if it has good atmosphere and good music while i wait.
Even more, while i wait in the UI you can have a Fish Catalog and Books about
fish, so while you wait there just listening to the birds and looking at the sea
in the docks or whasover, you can read about Fish. Even more, you can
use your Computer to enter a Virtual Market and improve your Fishing tools
and Fishing Skills.

But i agree after 1 hour maybe it's too much. So how about IN GAME TIME?

Because Decay System and Events like this (fishing) needs a proper IN GAME TIME
system or it's just blah blah.

So to solve this problem, 1 hour it's 1 minute. Then, in 12 minutes, you get a fish.

Same if it's a NASCAR Sponsor game, the guy it's sleeping in his sofa 12 minutes,
(it's 12 hours inside the Game) and the phone rings. There! Sponsor calling!
So this guy goes to the Mechanic to tell him they have the car. Finally, the Mechanic
starts to work on the Car 24hs non stop (24 minutes more) and you're ready to
Race.

So, in this mini game you did, you already have fishing: 12 minutes, find sponsor: 12 minutes, go to the mechanic: 24 minutes and train 9 weeks (12 hours).

48 minutes of gameplay! All right!

Finally you enter the Race....

How to solve wait 24 hours? Put Timers on the background.

 

Too many posts so I didn't read them all, forgive me if this was already covered, but the reason I would like to implement item decay is this: to get players to actually craft more items!

I was inspired to work on Unity projects mainly by growing up playing Runescape. Inflation is a massive problem in both the newschool and oldschool versions of the game, but what always got to me was how useless the mining and smithing skills in the game were. Same with fletching and crafting. There was almost no point to do these skills except to get a higher level.

Meanwhile in Minecraft, you actually make more tools, weapons, and armor (even from different tier ore, like making an iron pickaxe when you also have a diamond one cuz you don't wanna waste diamond mining something trivial) all the time because they break and you need them to use them.

In fact, if things in your game are *useful*, the time that they decay is almost irrelevant.

People will do what they need to do to achieve a task. In Minecraft, your wooden pickaxe can break after like, 30 seconds of continued use, and it really is seamless and makes sense. It's a freaking pickaxe made out of wood! And you need another pickaxe, so you make another pickaxe, and the game goes on.

Just my 2 cents.

 

"all the time because they break and you need them to use them."

 

Forever.
Don't like durability systems.

 

You shouldn't need item decay to encourage players to craft more items. If anything having to implement item decay for the sole purpose of getting players to craft is a good sign your crafting system isn't fun. A well designed crafting system should be able to stand on its own and if it's not able to it's time to go back to the drawing board.

Fallout 4 is a great example. It has no item decay yet it has a very enjoyable gameplay loop of crafting, killing, and looting. It was the first time I felt like I wanted to craft in a game rather than needed to. If you need ideas then it's the game to look at.

 

I may be missing something here, but isn't the answer to question just behind a bunch of playtesting? I mean you identify the influencing parameters, plugin your best guess numbers and then play right?

I'm sure any extreme or middle ground can be fun, given the rest of the systems work to compliment it and vice versa.

I feel it impossible to give any meaningful answer to question like this. It's like plucking one hair from womans head, showing it alone to an audience, and asking if the women would be more beautiful if you cut the single hair shorter.

FWIW, I generally find durability an annoyance. I think it only make sense in a hardcore realistic medieval simulator, in which youd need to worry about break sword in mid battle, so weigh rsik reward of carrying a heavy second one. In that case it's not a linear decay, but a chance to break completely.

 

It really depends on the experience you're going for.

If you want to encourage the player to burn through items and adapt to situations rapid degradation is best, such as in the Dead Rising series.

If you want it to be a march from dungeon to town such as with Elder Scrolls or Might and Magic, gradual but persistent degradation works best.

If you want to have it induce random moments of panic such as with Diablo 1, Low chance of damaging equipment with low health for items (1 in 1,000 hits result in 1 to 3 damage and the item has 4 HP).

And if you want a speed runner orientated game that is skill on skill, no degradation.



EDIT:

And no offense intended to some forum members on this thread, but you REALLY need to re-evaluate how you view game mechanics.

I see this a lot, tons of new devs.... Actually, tons of devs, period. have a very single minded approach to mechanics.

If someone says "MMO" you probably instantly think "WoW" (or whatever the kids are into these days) and are completely incapable of breaking away from their specific game.

Any concept can work if given the right approach.

Look at walking sims, not my cup of tea but whatever. If someone tried to pitch that 10 years ago think about what you would sound like:

DEV: "So I have an idea for a game where it's first person and you go home to find everyone gone and need to piece together what happened."

YOU: "Oh, so a Doom clone, eh? Well make sure to include a shotgun. I love shotguns!"

DEV: "No, it's not like that. It's story driven and supposed to be immersive."

YOU: "I think that's a terrible idea. The story is the worst part of Doom. You need more action!"

DEV: "It's not focused on shooting and action, it's..."

YOU: "Right, it's Doom! I get it. Not very original..."



I'm of course being hyperbolic here to show my point, but I see some variation of this conversation over and over and over and over again.

Stop racing towards former works and trying to make everything into a single design. It's truly exhausting and one of the big reasons I rarely come around anymore.

 

If you don't need the items, then you are either crafting for:
1. Pure, creative fun (almost never seen this in a crafting system unless you're making art)
2. Pure, boring level grinding.

 

Just my opinion as gamer, but i agree with this. As soon as I learn that a system is not essential to progress, I have no desire to use it at all. Big reason I couldn't play RDR2 or any Ubisoft game. Full of stuff, all of it can be ignored to no effect. And the core that is left has no meat at all.

I am just one type of gamer though. As we all know, different audience engages content differently. I dunno the average m mo audience. Presumably OP has some gauge on them.

 

Yeah, I'm biased because I played a ton of one MMO as a kid: Runescape.
I got so fed up with grinding, and the fact you would churn out commodities like "mithril platebodies" that were almost useless because they were low tier armor that required mid tier smithing skills...

Maybe if the player had some artistic input, crafting would be fun. Otherwise, it's grindy, or necessary (in the case of decay), or pointless.

 

Yeah I think making it as creative outlet is smart way to grab larger audience.