Looting

@vjek It's not a question of accepting it. I'm open to playing with a wide variety of mechanics.
What I think makes sense is that not all gear needs to be repaired just because it was looted from something a player killed, PC or NPC. If there's a strong enough reason for it I'll suck it up but just on principle it seems synthetic/labored.

 

What I think would make sense is that when you're combating with an enemy, your strikes can damage his armor, and his strikes can damage his arms, and there are rolls during the mêlée to see if it actually happens. I don't like it being forced.

 

@redfish I wanted to say something very similar but I think it deserves its own thread.

 

I think that might be needless programming.I mean, realistically, if I hit it enough to kill it, then I will have probably messed the armor up a decent amount. You could argue that IF I came out of nowhere and took him down like a grim reaper, that his weapon wasn't used, but who says that the target's gear was in tip top shape when the battle started?

A certain baseline damage to all looted gear would be acceptable to me, the only benefit of not doing it is so that I can put on perfect condition gear without making a trip back to town.

 

Depends where you hit him. Is his helmet going to be destroyed if you stabbed him in the gut?

 

No, but it's going to be damaged when he falls to the ground.

 

Is it even going to be in good condition before I meet him? Do I NEED it to be? However much it's worth to the vendor, the dev's will adjust it so that it's decent loot, and when I get the right stuff, I can fix it up, and I'll have my precious helmet. I don't need it to come off the NPC in pristine condition.

 

Rolling seems to offer the most variation. That way items can be damaged at times or in good condition (perhaps also depending on how they were killed).

 

Just remember, every feature that gets added to combat must be maintained by the game client, and will slow down some computers. If we make this feature a flat rate, it will have negligible impact on your CPS, but if you have the game calculating durability and condition per body part per hit, and you are in a place where multiple opponents are fighting on each side, on top of hit/miss, damage dealt, type of damage, location of damage, wound debuffs sustained, bleeding, etc, sooner or later everyone's system will hit it's limit.

 

Actually, this would need to be calculated on the server, in order to keep consistent result for all clients and avoid potential cheats. Not that this is much better, though, given that the less money Portalarium has to spend on servers, the longer we can expect the game to be supported.

 

And it will still contribute to lag. I'm all for quick clean background calculations, so that I can do more crazy stuff with lots of people.

 

Realism is not the same thing as fun. Games ultimately should focus on what is fun, not chasing realism merely for the sake of realism.

 

Why wouldn't that be fun? And what would be fun? Why the assumption that realism and fun are opposite poles?

 

These aren't polar opposites or absolutes. You don't have to be unrealistic to be fun. I'm just saying we shouldn't use realism alone to justify inclusion of a feature.

Features should be included if you can make the case it makes the game more enjoyable.

 

But part of what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game is always some degree of realism, because they're creating a world for you to live in, and that's exactly what makes it fun. You have to limit it in order to make the game work, sure. But its as if I were making a historical film on Lincoln; where I would try to find out what the clothing was really like, and if I didn't have a reason not to make it true to life, then I would do it. There may be a reason not to. There may be a reason to just leave things out. But barring any reasons why it wouldn't work, it would just help it be a better movie.

We have to talk more specifically, I think. Personally, I don't know why equipment damaging in battle on the basis of hits wouldn't add to the game, so that's why I suggested it.

 

Real life is often boring and frustrating. Start implementing realism for the sake of realism and you risk introducing into the game those boring and frustrating aspects of real life, often without making the game any more engaging. A loss-loss proposition.

Realism has it's place in a game, but that is a measured realism, adding elements that will improve the experience while keeping at bay the elements that will hinder the experience.

 

You find life boring? What boring and frustrating parts of life are you talking about?

 

Immersion and realism are different concepts. You can immersed into something totally fantastical and quixotic and that is fun. Realism can be extremely banal.

Should New Brtiannia have a revenue service and force players to sit down for lengthy audits just because it happens in real life?

It is also important to note that in the context of a CRPG, a role-playing game is defined by statistics. Half Life is a very immersive game in which you play the role of Gordon Freeman. It is first person, without Gordon speaking specifically to ramp up the illusion you're playing the role of him. But it isn't an RPG. Diablo, even with a minimalist story and its grinding is an RPG because the core mechanic of the game operates on statistics.

RPG does not mean story, though an RPG can have a great story as we certainly hope SotA will.

 

MalakBrightpalm already enumerated some reasons why it might be a bad idea from a load/performance perspective.
Every feature is an additional load. Looted finished product damage is easy and simple. What you're describing is more realistic, and unnecessary if the goal is to make players consume to equip looted finished products. What I was proposing as an idea for Looting in SotA was an economic sink, not a combat feedback feature.

If the goal is different (to create a detailed combat simulator, like Dwarf Fortress has) then sure. But be prepared for the additional cost such an idea will incur.
My suggestion adds nothing to combat latency. What you're suggesting will, no matter how small it might be. Also, it is worth considering why other persistent multiplayer online games don't have features, when suggesting one. If the result isn't worth the cost, or the method to reach the goal is too costly (and that doesn't just mean money or time), the idea may not be implemented. Not always, but sometimes.

There are a few variables we don't know, though. If combat with a single target is dozens or hundreds of hits, is it "realistic" to presume there wouldn't be items destroyed outright or made un-repairable? In such a case, you could, in the name of realism, make longer fights destroy or damage more equipment. That's... not a good path, though, for a variety of reasons.

In many persistent multiplayer online games since Meridian59, I've seen customers suggest to developers that body part strikes should be in the game. I've yet to see a game in that genre do it, or if they did, it was so meaningless, it was a complete waste of time, and everyone else learned from that mistake and didn't bother.

Finally, if SotA uses personal loot, do you track combat damage by body part, and then generate loot based on strikes done per player, by body region? Or do you track them all, and what another player strikes and destroys you don't get? I think that would be less popular than a resource sink to repair before you equip. No need for any downside with a simpler system.

 

Whether the game operates on statistics is irrelevant to a RPG, its just operates that way because its the way people have found to make it work. Role-playing makes an RPG, hence the name RPG.

I don't know.. Were there lengthy audits in the Middle Ages? Does time in the game run a slowly as in real life? Is nothing in a realistic game semi-automated and abstracted? I think that type of question is distracting.