Help to balance weapons

[Kes]

Also, I just noticed it censored one of my swords to 'lovable" instead of the word I used, ha ha. Basically, it's "A child without a father" Sword.

Suddenly your original post makes a lot more sense!

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

@Tai_MT That all sounds very logical. I was actually kicking around a similar idea of letting the "magic" based classes having a free to use magic bolt that would basically be their version of attack. I haven't looked for any scripts, but it sure would be nice to just have it on the battle menu, executable similarly to attack command. Also, a big lol to the 'lovable' sword!

 

[Tai_MT]

@HumanNinjaToo

Well, I just figured, if a magic user in a standard RPG runs out of magic... they're useless. So, they get these huge MP pools to ensure they can cast something absolutely every turn.

Honestly, that just begs the question, "Why are you even using MP at all then, if you're designing the game to make sure the Player has plenty of it to ensure you cast a spell every single turn?"

So, I thought, a lot of actual magical shows and stuff don't really have a "magic pool" of any kind. They have simple stuff that they can cast nearly instantly that they can fling around quite a bit while their more powerful stuff takes a minute or more to "charge up" or using those kinds of spells "exhausts" them in some way so they aren't spamming it.

Why wouldn't a mage in a world that has magic not have simple spells that could be cast quickly and frequently? Stuff that would keep them safe even if they had no proficiency with swinging a sword around? Just a little bolt of unrefined magical energy and BAM! Safe for the moment. Maybe safe long enough to cast their bigger spells that exhaust them.

I just kind of folded the idea into my combat system. I then decided to include Weapon Options to supplement that. Like, you just do a 0 MP "Energy Beam" that works like hitting the Attack Command, except for using your Magic stats... But, what if you wanted an element attached to that? Equip an Orb or something, now your attacks have elemental abilities linked to them without having to spend MP. I then removed the "Attack" bonus on the Orb because I thought to myself, "What if the player wants to make a mage that is basically a warrior? Like, they just want to drive up their Attack stat and whack people with their staves or wands or whatever?". The Orb fits that perfectly. It gets no "Attack" bonus, but it gets the elemental bonuses. I think I even had a version of it where it gave the user a chance to reflect magic back at enemies.

Plus, the idea of a mage smacking an enemy in the face with a crystal ball in hand, gripped like a basketball player... That really made me laugh. I just had to let players have the option of a build like that.

 

[Countyoungblood]

@Tai_MT That all sounds very logical. I was actually kicking around a similar idea of letting the "magic" based classes having a free to use magic bolt that would basically be their version of attack. I haven't looked for any scripts, but it sure would be nice to just have it on the battle menu, executable similarly to attack command. Also, a big lol to the 'lovable' sword!

Attack is a pretty broad term. Wouldnt the attack command apply to both attacking with a sword or a bolt?

Seems like a very simple problem if you just specify a different animation for attacking with a mage.

 

[Tai_MT]

Attack is a pretty broad term. Wouldnt the attack command apply to both attacking with a sword or a bolt?

Seems like a very simple problem if you just specify a different animation for attacking with a mage.

The problem is that we're talking about the "Attack" command in combat. It's omnipresent in every RPG Maker engine. It must occupy the same spot and it works the same for every character and every class, no matter who uses it. You can't really do anything with it unless you're using one of the programs that lets you slot in "scripts" or "plugins" to dynamically change it.

In essence, it's the same for absolutely everyone. The animation only "changes" with the weapon being used. So, to even change the animation, you'd have to lock it to a piece of equipment.

But, various problems still remain. The damage formula doesn't change, so it'd likely still be using the "attack" stat. Which, is going to be insanely low on most mage characters anyway, so it's still utterly pointless. The element of hitting "attack" won't change either, as it'll remain whatever you'd set it to (unless the weapon you're wielding has added elemental effects). You can't even change whether it's a physical or magical attack (so that it uses different stats for evasion and resistance or even ability to hit). You couldn't change if one has an ability to critically hit while the other doesn't...

All you'd be doing is just changing the animation of the command based on what weapon the person is using. It might look different, but that's all it'd do. At which point, you just go, "why did I change the animation to something that looks magical at all, if it has none of the characteristics of a magical attack?"

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

@HumanNinjaToo

Why wouldn't a mage in a world that has magic not have simple spells that could be cast quickly and frequently? Stuff that would keep them safe even if they had no proficiency with swinging a sword around? Just a little bolt of unrefined magical energy and BAM! Safe for the moment. Maybe safe long enough to cast their bigger spells that exhaust them.

This makes a lot of sense to me as well. I've been kicking around the idea of instant cast, having to charge more powerful spells, even allowing the higher tier spells to be interruptible by enemy attacks. I like the idea of having finite resources within battle, to the point that resource management becomes part of the strategy for longer fights.

I've also been looking at using wands for the mages to become more powerful in battle. However, I'm trying to deviate from the norm of making wands the weapons for mages. I find it plausible for a mage to hold a dagger in one hand, and a wand in the other, so I'm going to make wands an armor slot piece. It will function to enhance strength of spells and help to defend enemy spells.

 

[Countyoungblood]

Strategic resource management is great. I tried bringing it up here but that didnt go so well lol.

How are you planning on making spells interuptable?

 

[Tai_MT]

I've also been looking at using wands for the mages to become more powerful in battle. However, I'm trying to deviate from the norm of making wands the weapons for mages. I find it plausible for a mage to hold a dagger in one hand, and a wand in the other, so I'm going to make wands an armor slot piece. It will function to enhance strength of spells and help to defend enemy spells.

Ha ha ha, I did something similar. My "Elementalist" can equip what I call "Books" in their shield slot. They protect from specific elemental attacks. You can use them with a dagger or better... with the Wand. ^_^ You use the want to inflict Elemental Weakness on an opponent, you can use the Weakness to make your spells hit harder... And, you can equip the Book to nullify specific points of damage. Books have zero stats. But, you can protect against any element in the game, depending on which book you equip. Sometimes multiple elements, sometimes just a single one.

That was also one of the things my Orb used to do. It used to be one-handed so it could be used with the wand, but it seemed crazy, so I didn't bother with it. It used to have "spell reflect" on it. A few playtests revealed that as too powerful. Turned the weapon into two-handed and removed the "Magic Reflect" from it. I might add it back on at some point, no clue.

We'll see later.

Weapon balance never ends. ^_^ Always gotta be on the lookout for rebalancing and alterations. Gotta find the fun, keep the fun, and make sure a little bit of challenge remains.

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

@Countyoungblood I'm using Yanfly ATB battle system, so it is one of the options or comes in the Battle Add-on script. Can't remember exactly, I haven't got to the point of getting all the skills workable in the battle system yet, I'm still in the brainstorming phase in regards to skill creation. However, I know that it is possible with the plugins I'm using. I plan on making all weapon type skills as instant cast, most magic type skills will be short cast times, and some of the more powerful skills will have a longer cast time and be interruptible by certain enemy attacks/skills.

@Tai_MT What a coincidence, lol. That's great, I hadn't thought about defensive capabilities actually, I'd only been focused on how to increase MAT and switch up elements and the like. Thanks for the input.

 

[Tai_MT]

@HumanNinjaToo Don't forget that you can do anything with your weapons and armors. You can do cool and unique things beyond just stats!

Stats are cool and all, but they aren't the only ways to win combat, or make for fun weapons.

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

@HumanNinjaToo Don't forget that you can do anything with your weapons and armors. You can do cool and unique things beyond just stats!

Stats are cool and all, but they aren't the only ways to win combat, or make for fun weapons.

Yes, I totally agree. This is why I like the idea of being able to upgrade or enchant weapons and armor. You can allow the player to customize their equips however they wish, without bogging down the weapon and armor lists with a hundred variations of each type of weapon.

 

[Tai_MT]

Yes, I totally agree. This is why I like the idea of being able to upgrade or enchant weapons and armor. You can allow the player to customize their equips however they wish, without bogging down the weapon and armor lists with a hundred variations of each type of weapon.

Ha ha ha! *Raises his hand* Guilty! I have sooooo many weapons and armor, ha ha. I like it that way though. ^_^ I just like players being happy when they open chests and get something totally new. That whole, "I need to open my inventory and check that out" thing.

Totally different design philosophies.

I hope a lot of your upgrades and enchantments are also "side-grades". The problem I had with games like "Skyrim" was that there just weren't enough "upgrades" for weapons and armor or "enchants" to put on them. And, you had all these enchants that could only be on like specific pieces of equipment and not everything... And it was all so underwhelming.

I hope you've got a lot of upgrades and stuff that are all just different options for players. The more options, the better! At least, that's what I think.

 

[Titanhex]

So in order to balance my own game, I created 24 different weapons and give them their own stat modifiers based on weapon class and type.

Welp that's a mistake.

Decision fatigue is a real thing. The idea of having many weapons might sound fun and exciting for you, but it could be overwhelming and unnecessary for your player.
Further, it's much harder to design 24 different weapons than it is 4. Regardless, the player will always find the optimal weapon, choose it, and stick to it.

The only reason to have that many options is for open-ended Roleplay. Where the optimal strategy might exist but the player wants to play a lawful good paladin or a chaotic evil thief, which would steer them to using a non-optimal strategy in order to stay in character.

Also, in terms of realism, this is a bad pratfall that so many junior developers run into.
Realism has a purpose in design. That's usually to ground the game in order to give context and weight to the world that the player can latch on to, and is best established early and maintained consistently throughout. If you are going to make your weapons realistic, you have to go light if you plan on introducing non-realistic elements.
Using realism as a mechanic is a huge folley unless the game is centered around simulating realistic mechanics, like in the case of Luna's Wandering Stars, or Kerbal Space Program.
Using all those stats and combined stats is a lot for the player to take in when there's not a lot of weight behind the decision of what weapon to choose.

Also, huge tip, remove all penalties from your weapons (the minus -) and adjust your positive numbers accordingly. Players hate penalties, and it ends up being another dimension they don't wish to consider. Dungeons and Dragons figured this out when they created their 5e books, which focuses more heavily on positive design. WoW also did this with their famous "resting bonus system" story.

Balance comes from one place. Simplicity. Be simple, start simple, establish a simple premise. Introduce a fraction of what you want to introduce, in a very simple way. Give few options to start. Make the emergent strategy obvious at the start, with the scenarios just varied enough to allow different strategies to be tried. Predict your player's next move by giving them few paths.
From there, build. Predict. Test. Rebuild.

Balance starts from a simple place. It always has, it always will. You, and everyone here, would do well to remember that.

 

[Tai_MT]

Also, huge tip, remove all penalties from your weapons (the minus -) and adjust your positive numbers accordingly. Players hate penalties, and it ends up being another dimension they don't wish to consider. Dungeons and Dragons figured this out when they created their 5e books, which focuses more heavily on positive design. WoW also did this with their famous "resting bonus system" story.

I'm going to disagree here. Especially when games like Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 and Fallout New Vegas. Not about "removing weapon penalties" (that's a whole different discussion), but about players "hating penalties".

All three of these games are wildly popular. All three of these games have a "Trait" system. You can get something pretty good for your character, but it comes at a cost. Maybe you get more points to distribute, maybe you level up faster, maybe you can carry more... but they come at a cost.

Players really only hate a "negative" in their system if the "positive" to balance it out isn't worth the negative they're getting. That "positive" has to feel useful to your character in some way. Usually for your build, or your strategy of play. Heck, even "Wasteland 2" has this "Trait" system and it is used to give you an advantage somewhere while giving you a disadvantage somewhere else.

D&D 5E got rid of the "negatives" in their weapons to speed combat up. Especially after combat in 4E was notoriously slow (it was built as a miniatures game). However, you still have negatives for your stats and even skill rolls, so obviously they feel some negatives are worth using in their system (players will still roll on stats they have penalties for, if they feel they can beat their penalty and still use the skill, after all. Especially if their allies who don't have penalties in it have failed). Heck, even though weapons in D&D 5E no longer have penalties attached to them, there are still penalties associated with them and with specific actions in combat. If you're a "small" creature and use a "Heavy" weapon, you take a penalty of "Disadvantage" on every single roll you make with it. Personally, I feel that's a much larger penalty than "take a -2 to your roll", as on disadvantage you roll two D20s and must take the lower roll. The negatives are still they're, they're just not directly tied to the weapon itself. They're placed into every single other aspect of combat in order to create the same effect older versions did.

Also, wasn't the "Resting Bonus" thing in WoW to serve two purposes? 1. It was a system in which after you played so long, they nerfed the crap out of your XP so you wouldn't play forever (for skinner box reasons... to prevent player burn out). Players didn't like this, so they just renamed the system to "Rested XP Bonus" so players would stop being upset? 2. The system was also designed to create an "addiction" to the game like Facebook games do? A pattern of logging in? A strategy to make playing the game a habit? To keep raking in their monthly subscription money? Basically, the same thing Destiny 2 is doing now, except they're moron developers and had no idea how to market it so they wouldn't get backlash?

I'm not sure I'd call that "positive game design". Especially since it's not really about "making the player feel good" in any way and is more about, "how do we get players addicted to our game like Junkies?". But, that's just my opinion.

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

@Titanhex I can see your point, and thanks for the input. I have to disagree on some points though. I don't think penalties hurt the experience. I think there needs to be balance in the sense that a player has to give something up in order to get some other kind of advantage. If done well, I believe it can add to the experience. At any rate, I'm invested in what I'm doing at this point. I'm about to get into testing all the weapons and classes in battle and see if things are working how I want. That will really tell me a lot. So we'll see

 

[Countyoungblood]

@Titanhex I can see your point, and thanks for the input. I have to disagree on some points though. I don't think penalties hurt the experience. I think there needs to be balance in the sense that a player has to give something up in order to get some other kind of advantage. If done well, I believe it can add to the experience. At any rate, I'm invested in what I'm doing at this point. I'm about to get into testing all the weapons and classes in battle and see if things are working how I want. That will really tell me a lot. So we'll see

I understand wanting to keep a penalty system but in actuality its always a penalty/benifit system. Even if you dont actually punish the player with lowering something the differences in the weapons naturally does that.

For all purposes your system doesnt change weapons still maintain relative differences its just more about the feeling of the expirience like how hex brought up wows rest system.

On one hand you are "rewarded" for being rested and get "bonus" exp for a few hours and get more if you rest again.

The same system from a different point of view is youre punished for playing more than a few hours at a time and exp gains are lowered.

The numbers are the same but the perception is totally different.

 

[Titanhex]

Thank you @Countyoungblood Much appreciated.

He pointed out what I was getting at. It's not about removing the penalties or stats from the game, it's about shifting them. Instead of -3 5 8, you use 0, 8, 11 in order for a player to feel like they're gaining 2 things instead of gaining 2 and losing 1. This results in more positive feelings from the player while essentially keeping the balance between the numbers the same.
It also prevents fatigue on deciding if you want to take that penalty and what it might mean.

Punishment, negativity, and penalty has merit. It exists to reinforce behavior, and is only effective coupled with a system of rewards for doing the correct behavior.
Putting these penalties into your weapon does not serve that purpose.
(You'll also find that this justifies D&D's use of penalty systems brought up as a counter-point)

Also, when you bring up retro game design, remember that those existed during a time when ludology wasn't a thing. Retro games have merit, but you really do have to be picky about what you take from them.

There's a ton of reasons why this kind of design is important. I'm sure I could write out an essay on why it works, how it works, and its' significance. But I'd like to keep this short.

You might see the WoW system as being manipulative, as it curbed player behavior, but you have to be aware that is your job as the game designer. This game design philosophy is amoral anyways. It's merely a tool in your arsenal you need to be able to wield.

 

[Tai_MT]

Thank you @Countyoungblood Much appreciated.

He pointed out what I was getting at. It's not about removing the penalties or stats from the game, it's about shifting them. Instead of -3 5 8, you use 0, 8, 11 in order for a player to feel like they're gaining 2 things instead of gaining 2 and losing 1. This results in more positive feelings from the player while essentially keeping the balance between the numbers the same.
It also prevents fatigue on deciding if you want to take that penalty and what it might mean.

I understand the point, I just don't really agree with it. A negative with your stat is "something to overcome" or is a reason to "not do something with". Can your character still be effective if they lost 10 points in their Agility stat? Yep. They can. Does the player care if they lose those points at all in exchange for the +20 extra damage they would do? Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. The "fatigue" you talk about really only happens when a player is inexperienced with the particular combat system you're using. Players will take as few negatives (or none if possible) in order to maximize their characters in every way. But, if your combat system is nuanced or they realize that there really is no point to increasing specific stats for specific characters, especially as they are playing them... Well, they will look at the negatives more closely. They might consider the chance to "specialize" into the way they're playing those characters as worth the few negatives they'd have to endure. And, if they don't want to endure those negatives, they may just equip things that minimize those negatives.

In games with a lot of different ways to play characters, those negatives become tools to help the player better play those characters in the ways they might want to play.

Personally, what I like doing is to leave options for "the new player" who doesn't want to lose any particular stat (you'll notice I have several weapons with these stat groupings) as well as options for "the experienced player" who wants to specialize their characters more. I find that this is better design than simply going all one way or all the other.

I absolutely want players to have fun as noobs who have no clue what any of my stats or states or weapons or armor or elements or anything do. I also absolutely want those players to think, "maybe I can do something different now that I know about how this all works?" and seriously consider the stats and penalties.

Inherently, "negative stats" or "penalties" don't make a player "feed bad" or produce "negative feelings". Most players will look at a negative and either say, "yeah, that's fine, I can deal with that" or say, "no, I really don't want to deal with that" and move on with their day. Each kind of player knows what they're looking for instinctively. "I'm playing a sniper, I need more range and more damage. Does it really matter how fast I can move? Probably not, I'm not going to be moving a whole lot anyway" or "I'm not really sure which stats are most important yet, I'm going to make sure I only upgrade to options that don't provide a negative for me, so I can figure this out and not be punished by having a low stat somewhere".

However, this is all just my perspective on the thing. As a player who routinely weighs the "negatives" of stats and equipment against the positives as well as a player who has been a "noob" in quite a few games and has not wanted to take on negatives immediately.

I'm just trying to say that the design decision to include negatives on weapons (or anywhere else in your game) isn't a "a bad one" or even "a less fun one". It's not even a "conditioning tactic". It doesn't even usually result in "less positive feelings" in most instances (unless your negatives aren't properly balanced against the positives... At which point, you need to do some rebalancing as a dev).

Punishment, negativity, and penalty has merit. It exists to reinforce behavior, and is only effective coupled with a system of rewards for doing the correct behavior.
Putting these penalties into your weapon does not serve that purpose.
(You'll also find that this justifies D&D's use of penalty systems brought up as a counter-point)

I disagree for reasons outlined above. I'll use an instance from Borderlands 2. A shield called "The Bee". As long as it has 100% of its health (you haven't been hit), it boosts outgoing damage on any weapon you wield by exceptionally MASSIVE amounts. It's generally regarded as one of the best pieces of equipment in the entire game or franchise. It has two downsides though. 1. It simply doesn't have much health in it, even at its maximum level. So, it can't take many hits before it's simply gone and enemies start eating into your actual health. 2. It's recharge speed is among some of the slowest in the game. So, when you take a hit, you will be waiting a while before it starts recharging... and it recharges slowly when it does.

It's a specialist piece of equipment. All the player has to do to utilize it... is to not get hit. Or, carry equipment so amazing that you kill everything before it has a chance to hit you. The downsides are essentially circumvented.

In fact, you'll find much of the loot in Borderlands 1 and Borderlands 2 operates kind of like this. Positives, Negatives, different archetypes, etcetera. There is a fair amount of loot in these games that ends up being "useless" to players, but a good chunk of it ends up being amazing despite the negatives imposed upon the player.

In a more well-thought out game that doesn't just seek to emulate Sociology and Psychology Textbook lessons, these become options. They become challenge. They become reinforcement of player thinking and adaptability. They become options of solving problems. Namely, the problem of how to most efficiently make the enemy's HP hit zero.

There's a ton of reasons why this kind of design is important. I'm sure I could write out an essay on why it works, how it works, and its' significance. But I'd like to keep this short.

Too bad, I prefer lengthy debate. But, to be fair, there are literally hundreds of ways for game design to work and thousands of reasons why any single one is important or unimportant or good or bad. There's not really "a right answer" unless all we're seeking to do is get people trapped in The Skinner Box. Game design that doesn't rely on that box is more difficult. As such, I often refer to anything that uses even a tiny inkling of "Skinner Box Design" as "lazy game design" or "Devs who don't know how to do their job".

You might see the WoW system as being manipulative, as it curbed player behavior, but you have to be aware that is your job as the game designer. This game design philosophy is amoral anyways. It's merely a tool in your arsenal you need to be able to wield.

Nope, as the game designer, it is my job to provide fun. It isn't my job to psychologically manipulate or trick someone into doing something decidedly not fun in order to get their money. If a player actually has fun, they come back to play your game again and again without needing to be tricked into doing so. I find the behavior of player trickery to be abhorrent. It is often little more than legalized gambling techniques employed against children just so devs can be lazy, companies can more cheaply make games (less content, less fun, less... everything... more Skinner Boxes), and they can capture the most amount of people for least amount of effort possible. In other words... Digital Drug Dealers.

Let's take a look at Minecraft for a moment. Where are the Skinner Boxes in that game? There aren't any. It's essentially a LEGO set. Build what you want, with what you want, with friends, or strangers. Sky's the limit, anything you can imagine. A game that promotes creativity. It doesn't really have an end. You can beat "bosses" and get some of the "endgame items", sure, but... What's the goal? The goal is whatever you make it. It made a crapload of money. All it was ever advertised as is that sandbox experience. No story. Combat is as basic as it gets (more a test of positioning and quality of your weapons than anything else). Yet, how much money did that make?

As devs, it's our jobs to provide fun to players. An experience that doesn't seem "unfair". With options for replayability or for sharing the experiences with friends.

I prefer not to wield the almighty Skinner Box as a wrench or a hammer. I prefer it stays in the recycle bin where it belongs. I prefer letting the player find their own fun in my game and just working on giving them all the options I can to get them there.

I prefer to not think of my audience as "mindless drones who need to be manipulated". I don't care for knowing how to manipulate my players. I care to find out the ways I can help them accomplish the things they want to in my game. That's what I value Player Psychology for. Why they do the things they do in games. Not to use it against them like a cudgel, but to better understand how I use it to give them a toolbox.

 

[Countyoungblood]

Thank you @Countyoungblood Much appreciated.

He pointed out what I was getting at. It's not about removing the penalties or stats from the game, it's about shifting them. Instead of -3 5 8, you use 0, 8, 11 in order for a player to feel like they're gaining 2 things instead of gaining 2 and losing 1. This results in more positive feelings from the player while essentially keeping the balance between the numbers the same.
It also prevents fatigue on deciding if you want to take that penalty and what it might mean.

Punishment, negativity, and penalty has merit. It exists to reinforce behavior, and is only effective coupled with a system of rewards for doing the correct behavior.
Putting these penalties into your weapon does not serve that purpose.
(You'll also find that this justifies D&D's use of penalty systems brought up as a counter-point)

Also, when you bring up retro game design, remember that those existed during a time when ludology wasn't a thing. Retro games have merit, but you really do have to be picky about what you take from them.

There's a ton of reasons why this kind of design is important. I'm sure I could write out an essay on why it works, how it works, and its' significance. But I'd like to keep this short.

You might see the WoW system as being manipulative, as it curbed player behavior, but you have to be aware that is your job as the game designer. This game design philosophy is amoral anyways. It's merely a tool in your arsenal you need to be able to wield.

Youre more than welcome titanhex.

Its always nice to talk with people that understand how and why things like this matter.

 

[Titanhex]

You've been watching too much "Extra Credits" on Youtube.

I highly suggest you check out some stuff by Mark Brown, Errant Signal, Super Bunny Hop, or any of numerous lectures done on the GDC Youtube Channel. I also suggest you read some of the text books available on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible. Book of Lenses and Game Feel, among others.
And don't get me wrong, Extra Credits isn't bad. It's just highly abstract and very fluffy. It's conjecture, and lacks application. Good to ponder, but insubstantial if you want a concrete lesson.

You believe your job is to provide fun. But a good designer knows that fun is an ambiguous term. Without definition, it's an aimless goal. In fact, today many games do not provide fun. Yet that doesn't make the end experience any less enjoyable.
Believing that a game must be fun is an archaic term applied to video games from when they were considered toys. In 2011 games were considered art by the U.S. Supreme Court, which elevated their status and our expectation of them as a medium.
If you truly believe that games are suppose to be fun, then you are a toy manufacturer hoping to get money out of your customers. Akin to EA and Ubisoft. Nothing wrong with that. But I tend to go a different direction is all.

Honestly though this whole discussion has been built on misunderstanding. You erroneously seem to believe my end goal of game development and behavior conditioning is to manipulate the player to play continously.
In reality, my end goal is to get the player to experience the game in the way I intend. Meaningful interaction. Deeper understanding of the mechanics. Reward the player for caring. All to allow the game to conclude in a meaningful way.
In order to do that, I have to predict the player's decisions. That is done through conditioning. I can name you plenty of modern games that adopt this mindset, both indie and triple A.
Even Minecraft (SSP/SMP) conditions a player to perform certain behaviors while discouraging other behavior. It's actually heavily skinner-box centric. Perhaps one of the most egregiously skinner-box-centric games to bring up. It's a survival game. That whole genre is strongly built on skinner-box mechanics.
Yes, there's Creative Mode, but Creative Mode ceases being a game.

By adding a negative number to a weapon, you are punishing the player for making a minor decision about their character. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day it's inefficient and pointless. Punishment and penalty exists to influence a player's behavior. Your decision to add a penalty to a weapon was done arbitrarily. There really is no design-centric reason to do so.
And that's my whole point. And honestly, it's fine that you did that. I've done it before. 95% of the people using the engine have probably done it as well.
But I'm trying to explain to you what is wrong with it and how to correct it.

Your Borderlands Shield is a reward for high-skilled play. League of Legends does the same thing. In both games there are items and traits that give the player a greater advantage for being good at the game, but penalize them for poor playing and bad decisions.

Deviating, you already mentioned an issue with fatigue. The player still has to make a decision about the stat.

Spoiler

Inherently, "negative stats" or "penalties" don't make a player "feed bad" or produce "negative feelings". Most players will look at a negative and either say, "yeah, that's fine, I can deal with that" or say, "no, I really don't want to deal with that" and move on with their day. Each kind of player knows what they're looking for instinctively. "I'm playing a sniper, I need more range and more damage. Does it really matter how fast I can move? Probably not, I'm not going to be moving a whole lot anyway" or "I'm not really sure which stats are most important yet, I'm going to make sure I only upgrade to options that don't provide a negative for me, so I can figure this out and not be punished by having a low stat somewhere".

This is exactly what decision fatigue is. If a person has made 300 decisions throughout the day, they don't want to go home to a video game and make 100 more. Especially if those decisions are meaningless but still must be made.
And when you're making this decision for 3 other characters on top of your current one, it compounds. And the more you play, the more it compounds, until the game is a chore.

If the player is looking at a 2/1/1 blade vs their 1/1/1 blade, bam, easy, meaningful decision, no fatigue.
If they're deciding a 5/1/-2 blade against their 1/1/1 blade and if the -2 penalty is worth it, you've asked the player to make a decision they shouldn't have to. That blade is balanced the same as the 2/1/1 blade.

I think that's a good stopping point. Hopefully the light clicks and you more fully understand the scope of what I'm saying.