Bro, do you even Role Play???

That is if they don't find an alternate that pleases both parties. Redfish started a good thread about enchantment. If there were both temporary or permanent enchantment options, then a wand or rod could be a charged item, or have a more permanent function. It's a good read. Nice thoughts.

 

I think Ristra was also talking about casting spells, too, and not just item enchantment. I'm kind of behind on listening to dev talks, so I admit I should listen to the more recent ones to get clued in on this.

 

I lean to the foci side of wands. Specially if you count in item affinity.

A wand with charges isn't really different than casting a spell. It takes resources either way. Though I do like the idea of wands that can be charged so non magic type players have some limited access to spells.

Some hybrid of both is probably what will happen.

 

The suggestion in my thread is kind of a hybrid approach. Its mainly talking about weapon enchantments, but the conversation turned to wands later on.

 

Gear grinding happens everytime a game without open pvp for all is released. Period.

 

When we whinge about grinding we are talking about doing dungeon a b c until we have enough points to buy ONE item upgrade, then we grind dungeons a b c d, until we can buy the next upgrade, then we do dungeons a b c d e and so forth and so forth until we get to a raid. Where we do raid over and over....till i die from boredom and stab myself in the eye with a spoon.

For gear to paraphrase we love the idea of HORIZONTAL progression ie Armor A gives +15 str but Armor B gives +20% resist to fire (please dont read into my example). Each one is useful but for what purpose?

And finally to tie it all in, Free looting for the circulation of items, items being smelted down for resources etc to keep the economy kicking over. I want to see a rich merchant class, I want to see the resource gatherers, I want to see the high end PvErs and I want to see the slimy deformed pkers. You dont get that if gear is from Raids only or PvP tokens, you dont get that if you dont lose your gear EVER.

Like others have said, EVE manages to cater for all gamer types so why cant SOTA?

Simplez!

 

Is it a gear grind to get gear in Ultima 4-9? Access to gear in single player games is normally gated by progression of a story. But their is not grind for the gear.

There is a gear variance in the Ultima games. Leather armor is not as good as plate armor and magic armor is best. In a game with a crafting system they simply add levels of material used in the crafting of the armor.

Still not a grind unless you consider gaining wealth a grind for gear. But you should expect to pay more, or spend more time gathering, if you want to have the rare resources crafted into armor of your choice.

A gear grind is a progression in gear where you must go through the gearing process. Having the currency to make (have made) the gear of choice out right skips any gear grind.

 

Because then they would have to tune all the game to be doable in said low-level gear.

For me to not be turned off by the gear, it needs to be either permanent (I achieve a certain gear level, I don't go below that gear level again), or else close to meaningless (gear is just a disposable, cheap enabler that I can readily replace with identical pieces).

Also, while I do enjoy the meta-game of swapping pieces of equivalent, but specialized, gear according to the situation, I find the idea of using sub-par gear just to minimize my costs or my risks to be quite contrary to having fun in the game. I want to use my best gear all the time, and if that is not practical, there's a good chance of me just moving to a game that does not penalize me for wanting to bring my best all the time.

Lol. EVE catering to all kinds of players?

Well, perhaps now it does, given that PvP in null sec seems to have nearly died, according to articles I keep seeing. Seems like PvP was making players waste too many resources, so most null-sec players joined one of two huge null-sec alliances, which then went to declare a kind of cease-fire; territorial warfare is a thing of the past, with territory control happening through pacific negotiations, and any player or corporation that does not conform to that is quickly eradicated.

In other words, EVE recreated the cold war; some tension, but little to no actual action, given that no side can afford to move first. Not sure if this is the model you would want here.

 

Why do you find it contrary to having fun? This is something I just don't get. I don't find saving a limited charged fireball wand for the right situation anti-fun. Or saving your reagents, so you don't use them up. That's basically the same situation we're talking about. Most Ultima games didn't have item wear, but we did have to make sure not to use up all our reagents, scrolls, and other limited-use items. And personally, I found the games to get that much more boring once you were all decked out in magical gear. (Especially the Blackrock Sword). Its either becomes unchallenging or a form of level gating.

But I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

Hard to explain. I can't really put it into words, it's just that it feels absurdly frustrating for me to use up anything that is issued in limited quantities.

I'm the kind of player that ends games without using any limited-use item, unless it's something that can be readily replenished with little effort, and even then I will use said easily replenish-able items only as a last resource. A wand with just a few charges before falling apart in a computer RPG is something that I would not use at all.

Besides, limited use items that can't be readily replenished or replaced must, forcibly, not be considered when tuning the game, because otherwise it would cause players that misused the item to get stuck — which is not considered good game design nowadays, and was seen as tricky even a decade or two ago. So in most games I'm not really prevented from progressing, or beating the game, by refusing to use such rare items at all.

Reagents are usually a different issue altogether, given that they tend to be easily replaced, but even then I tend to build my characters to avoid, to the greatest possible, having to depend on this kind of item. My ships in space sims always use energy weapons instead of ammunition based ones, I tend to treat character builds that depend on reagents to maintain their performance as if they didn't exist, I pick talents and skills based on how limited their use feel more than on efficiency, etc.

So, going back to gear: if gear is somehow permanent, with no chance at all of myself losing a piece of gear, then I can actually care for it, give it some importance (which also means that I will never, ever, engage in any content that can make me lose said gear); if the gear is not permanent, but is not important at all, being just a cheap and disposable enabler, then I will proceed to treat gear as just something to keep atop of, like making sure I have enough health potions, but never something to actually care about, since in games I only care for permanent things; if the gear is more than just a mere enabler, and is not permanent, then chances are good I will find playing to be more frustrating than fun, and thus I will leave the game.

 

There's something wierd about this but I can't quite put it into words.
Something bothers me about this playstyle but it elusive. Maybe someone here would help me figure it out?

So, strinder, you never ever use scrolls and wands and potions?

 

If the game does not force me to, no. And force as in, it's mathematically proven that without using them progression is impossible. When playing (pen and paper) D&D I would pester the GM to let me go find a merchant or a wizzard that would take those out of my hands in exchange for permanent, even if minor, magical items, and when playing computer RPGs I simply figure out how to beat whichever challenge I'm facing without using this kind of consumable item.

Edit: The exception is when the consumable is exceptionally cheap or free, and easily replaced. Such as the Estus Flasks in Dark Souls. Then I will use it strategically, though only as a last resort.

The same goes for special attacks that are limited, etc. Heck, I played Blood Roar without using the Beast Drive at all (and was good enough to both unlock all secrets and to hold my own against my friends that did use the Beast Drive), both because I enjoyed the higher difficulty and because I didn't like the idea that the transformation was limited.

 

That's some DEEP roleplay here.

 

Doesnt want to use perishable items
Wants gear to be as strong as possible
Claims that game is easier if gear isnt the limiter.

Great logic.

I think what you really want is IDDQD

 

Again, incorrect.

Thats the problem with assumptions

 

I agree with gear being as strong as possible, but there is this issue of the bludgeon fighter... They break stuff. Seems reasonable that if you fight one long enough you will have wrecked stuff. If you and I like strong gear maybe we should run from these guys unless we think we can take them out really quick.

 

Gear being strong isn't a problem. The problem is when the gear adds stats to a players current stats as part of the character development.

Armor should be for protecting the body from damage not adding to the players ability to perform.

 

Correction: won't use perishable items unless either they are so cheap and easy to replenish that I don't have to be concerned about them, or else I have no alternative. With anything that can be exhausted the devs have to tune the game to allow a player that does not have the item anymore to prevail anyway, so I just have to play well and I can, quite likely, ignore consumables.

Nope. Never said that. What I basically said is that, if gear is powerful, then I want it to be permanent; if gear is not powerful, if it's merely an enabling tool for the character — as usually is gear in the real world, by the way — and it's readily and easily replaced with identical copies of anything that was lost, then I don't mind (much) if said gear can be lost.

What I don't want is gear that is powerful or important, and can be lost in any way.

Some persons make logic leaps; I get the impression that you are attempting logic somersaults.

Don't seem to always land in the correct place, though; I don't think I've ever said that permanent gear makes the game any easier or more difficult. Because by itself it doesn't; it's a matter of tuning.

When you quote multiple sentences and don't specify what you are answering to, it's a bit hard to follow.

Do you mean having to tune the game for cheap and disposable gear if the gear can be lost? The devs themselves said that in their answer for why they aren't planning full loot, you can find it in the first post of the megathread.

Do you mean EVE not catering to all kinds of player? EVE is a niche game. Half the players that purchase the game don't last the first month — and I'm not talking about free trials, but actual purchases, and this was said by CCP itself. It's rare to find a player that enjoys EVE, and even rarer to find a player that accepts doing anything in EVE that brings increased risk of PvP, with the vast majority of players staying in the safe places (again, CCP itself said this; it's something they want to 'fix', but didn't manage to do yet).

Do you mean PvP in EVE being actually rare? Well, I don't have first hand experience, but judging by the external blogs I follow, and a few visits to the official forums, seems like one of the most popular topics is how to get players to ditch non-aggression pacts and engage in PvP again.

 

Exactly. This is broken in too many games. They force you to mix and match the right gear in order for you to have the optimal stats. I understand why games do this. It causes you to think very carefully about how you optimize your character. It keeps characters from all having the same stats too.

The problem is that it forces people into a Min/Max frame of thought (which seems to be the opposite of what SotA is going for). I would much rather wonder if this gear or that gear is better or not. If the Min/Maxing becomes too blurred as to which items work best then people will start creating characters the way they believe it should be done. Maybe. I'm sure there will be some people who think one way is right, or their might be waves of trends of people using a particular set of items, then somebody else discovers something they think is better so everybody switches to another... then there will be the non trendy people who use some of the more obscure items (and I think that is the goal of SotA. To remove the Min/Max mentality and create characters of all types using any item).

Can you imagine rogues using a dagger instead of a more damaging sword? That sounds reasonable though. I'm really thinking about it. Although the dagger might prove to be the better weapon for a rogue too considering the speed and any sneak attack damage, or whatever.

Either way if we don't really know the figures we cannot say for sure what is or isn't the best set of items for a character. Never adding stat bonuses to items will help with this greatly. Although that doesn't mean there can't be specialty items that enhance certain skills. Like elfin boots that make a person move silently, or a staff of the magi or some spell cap that enhances whavever, but those would be the exception not the standard rule of all items.

 

Can we get back on the subject of pestering GMs?
I want to feel that impending heart attack I almost felt the previous time.
Let's talk about this some more please.