Repair your gear!

[Shelby]

We live in a world where people are cutting corners! I for one am in favor of RPG game depth! I want to have a real experience! One example of this is repairing my gear. Now after I get beat up after a monster fight shouldn't my armor be a little damaged? That wamp rats claws really cut into me good so shouldn't I need to repair it?

Well in some games...no. Thankfully some people still have this feature, like in the Star Wars online game you repair your stuff, even though it is VERY watered down from what it used to be. Your bikes used to smoke and catch FIRE!

Now what about in ACE? With all these monster stats and item drops I think it would be a natural fit. So my question to you all is. Is repairing your gear to much to ask these days? Do you love it? Do you hate it? And why

Shelby

 

[??????]

For ace, having 'repairable gear' is rare simply because it requires a few scripts to make it happen. Like, one to make all equipment unique, then one to allow for damage and repairs (I have written both in the past - they can be a little tricky)

In general though, I think this is a must have feature for most RPG games. I mean, I wouldn't stop playing a good game because it didn't have the feature, but I would certainly play a poor game for longer if it did

 

[Zoltor]

Be advised, you should think of the practicality of having such a feature in a game, above trying to make a game realistic.

The very feature you're talking about, has a alarmingly high track record of hurting gameplay.

There are ways too implement it safely, like if the specific game forces you to go back to town "very" often anyway, you have a limited inventory, thus can't treasure hunt for long, exc(basically in a Diablo clone type game, It's most suited for), but in any possible case, you're just better off not having the feature at all.

It makes the game feel like a chore, it drains you of your gold, it forces you back to town while you're in the middle of something, ect.

There's no actual "good" points to the feature, only neutral, and bad things as far as I can tell.

 

[Shelby]

Be advised, you should think of the practicality of having such a feature in a game, above trying to make a game realistic.

The very feature you're talking about, has a alarmingly high track record of hurting gameplay.

There are ways too implement it safely, like if the specific game forces you to go back to town "very" often anyway, you have a limited inventory, thus can't treasure hunt for long, exc(basically in a Diablo clone type game, It's most suited for), but in any possible case, you're just better off not having the feature at all.

It makes the game feel like a chore, it drains you of your gold, it forces you back to town while you're in the middle of something, ect.

There's no actual "good" points to the feature, only neutral, and bad things as far as I can tell.

Realistic! That's the good feature and that's what I want. Games are way to easy these days. They keep on streamlining them to death, like mass effect and dragon age! My god did they ruin those! If I have to run back to town ofter great! Or maybe I could have some repair hammers in my backpack? 

 

[??????]

It makes the game feel like a chore, it drains you of your gold, it forces you back to town while you're in the middle of something, ect.

There's no actual "good" points to the feature, only neutral, and bad things as far as I can tell.

Not necessarily.

For example: User has the best weapon in the game, they have to repair it once every hour or they will have to resort to an alternative weapon. This creates a strategical element for the player. Having to prioritize fights to save their best weapons power - wearing alternative equipment for clearing the cave and then changing into the good equip for the boss.

Additionally, It gives you something to spend your gold on when at the end of the game - which far too many games do not have.

 

[Shaz]

Yeah, I think it would be interesting, but only in games where you're really trying to immerse the player in the whole experience. I know all games "should" do that, but some games are more about the story and the journey and allow the player to progress rather than getting "bogged down".


I guess what I'm trying to say is, if it's not the "whole deal" (lots of realistic OTHER systems as well), then it would become a pain.


And a game like that would probably attract different players to one that's more about the story and less about the realism.

 

[Zoltor]

Realistic! That's the good feature and that's what I want. Games are way to easy these days. They keep on streamlining them to death, like mass effect and dragon age! My god did they ruin those! If I have to run back to town ofter great! Or maybe I could have some repair hammers in my backpack? 

Oh no, you completely misunderstood, dificulty/challenge is a completely different story, and I'm all for that.

With that said though, if you think having to repair equipment is gonna add difficulty to the game, you're sorely mistaken. All It's gonna do, is make people go back to town/carry extra equipment with them to avoid being forced back to town before they actually need to.

 

[Shelby]

Oh no, you completely misunderstood, dificulty/challenge is a completely different story, and I'm all for that.

With that said though, if you think having to repair equipment is gonna add difficulty to the game, you're sorely mistaken. All It's gonna do, is make people go back to town/carry extra equipment with them to avoid being forced back to town before they actually need to.

Having to go back to town because my sword broke off in a goblins skull is a NEED! And is fun I like knowing the developers are adding in depth, I like feeling like I am really on a journey and have to be careful with my gear. I want all the depth i'm greedy!

 

[whitesphere]

For an open world RPG, with a strong "frustrate the player" realistic vibe, I think it can be a useful feature, which would either require the party to have some armor/weapon smithing skill, or use an NPC armorer or weaponsmith to repair.    And, of course, it makes mines more important to the players besides a place to find a dungeon.

However,  I believe strongly it adds needless work to a story-driven RPG, since the main point of the latter is to experience the story.   In a story driven game, fixing armor and weapons is like using the restroom --- essential but not usually front and center to the story. 

I've read some well researched military history  (if you consider the 1632 series that) and combat-focused fantasy worlds (Codex Alera), and neither ever talked about armor or weapon repair, although both had a lot of research done on actual equipment and detailed very specific injuries realistically.  Basically, if I wouldn't want to read about it in a story, I wouldn't want to play it in a video game.

The only time I see that being front and center in a story-driven RPG, is if it gives the party access to, say, a powerful weapon or armor by repairing damaged ancient or rusted equipment.   But it's not a constant worry of "Will my sword break during this fight?"

Basically, it could easily add a LOT of frustration to combat, especially if you add in realistic weight and equipment capacity limits.  "Oh, crap, the sword broke in the middle of combat.  So I have to beat the dragon with my bare hands."  Cue rapid player demise.

When it comes to challenge in an RPG, I like that to be puzzles, combat, some grinding, following the story, etc.  The last thing I want to see is "Need to micromanage my equipment to survive."  But that's my opinion.

 

[Zoltor]

I was gonna post a reply, but Whitesphere summed it up nicely.

 

[Shelby]

Your sword breaks while fighting the dragon and he eats you...love it!

 

[whitesphere]

Your sword breaks while fighting the dragon and he eats you...love it!

The only time I found it amusing was the very old text adventure called, well, "Adventure."

In it, the final fight goes something like this:

- You see the Dragon

>kill it

With what?  Your bare hands?

>yes

Congratulations!  You killed the dragon with your bare hands!  Unbelievable, isn't it?

 

[Harmill]

I don't like mechanics that are only added to add "realism", especially if they are frustrating or just...unnecessary. To me, such a system should be implemented if there is a clear reason or limitation in mind. The best example is Dragon's Crown.

In Dragon's Crown, you enter dungeons and fight monster after monster, ending a level with a boss. When you finish a level, you have the option of cycling to the next level, or returning to the HUB world where you can repair your equipment, purchase new equipment, change your character, turn in or start quests, etc. The key is, each time you choose to continue your "cycle", by choosing to play the next level instead of returning to the HUB, you earn a bonus for that next level (ex: +50% EXP, or +50% Gold). These bonuses stack, and you get a new bonus or improves on an existing bonus each time you consecutively play another level. Basically, the longer you can stay away from the HUB world, the more EXP and Gold you can earn on a per-level basis.

BUT! The limitation here is the equipment's durability. When your weapon reaches 0 DUR, or your armour, it loses a vast amount of it strength. It doesn't break. If they broke, and you permanently lost said equipment, that would suck. The reason equipment durability is acceptable in this game format, is because it prevents you from endlessly playing levels. Eventually, all your available equipment is going to reach 0 DUR, and staying alive in the dungeons is going to become difficult as your start to deal less damage and take more damage than normal. This is an intuitive design that has a clear focus and purpose. The designers allow the player to have multiple "equip sets". If you can fill four equipment sets, you have 4x the available equipment to use during your dungeon romping. This encourages you to have multiple weapons, multiple armours and accessories, etc. The more equipment sets you have, the longer you can stay in the dungeons. The longer you can stay in the dungeons, the faster you can earn EXP and Gold. Everything fits together nicely, and the player doesn't feel a sense of frustration over this implementation of durability.

Besides that, I have not played an RPG that has done equipment durability in a non-frustrating way. Fire Emblem is close in their implementation, but they have too many characters to look after that it just becomes too much of a nuisance to micromanage. I don't feel like it adds any depth to the game the same way Dragon's Crown implementation does. 

Generally, I very much dislike durability/repair mechanics. If you insist on using it, Dragon's Crown is an excellent example of how to do it right. If you only want to add it for "realism's" sake....I'd suggest not to. Not unless the whole point of your game is simulate realism...

 

[Zevia]

Keep in mind the sort of environment that a typical RPG Maker game is going to have, too. In an MMO or a dungeon crawler, you're fighting tons of enemies, but as a general rule, they're entertaining enough from enemy to enemy. If you kill 100-200 enemies before a piece of equipment requires repair, it's not too bad - sort of gives you a place that you have an excuse to stop and hit the nearest town or hub.

If you kill 100 random enemies in an RPG Maker game, there are either WAY too many random battles (either because you have to grind or the encounter rate is too high) or it's a very long game - and even still, if there are enough opportunities to kill 100 random enemies that you actually have to repair your equipment more than once or twice, I'd really be of the opinion that nobody's going to finish the game because of the amount of random battles.

For something more feasible to the nature of random encounters in a traditional RPG, you'd have to have equipment breaking every 10 battles or so. Keep in mind, if you have a repair feature in the game, then your equipment should require it often enough to warrant its existence - but it's just going to be frustrating as a result.

An MMORPG has durability because it's a money sink - it's part of a multiplayer world where it's advantageous to keep the economy from inflating too much. That's the reason for high prices on things like mounts, custom appearances, durability, reagents, etc. etc. In a single-player RPG, though, what's the purpose?

If you can sit down and say, "There is a GOOD reason to force the player to micromanage their gear," then by all means, go ahead and implement it. But as others have mentioned, it has to be a game that otherwise is telling the player from the moment they start playing, "Hey, you will be micromanaging everything in this game." So your gear will probably need weight, in addition to durability. Probably you're going to have scarce resources. Maybe you have to take care of hunger and thirst. Perhaps you have limited opportunities to save. If none of those things sound fun, then neither should repairing equipment. There are people who enjoy that kind of gameplay, but it's a relatively small subsection of the single-player RPG audience.

Still, as always: make the game that you'd want to play. If you love the idea of repairing equipment, then do it. Just don't be surprised if a lot of other people aren't digging on the idea, too.

 

[Simon D. Aelsi]

Sounds interesting. Where would we find such a script for that, though? I love the idea of having to get my claws repaired.

 

[Wavelength]

"If there's anything in reality that's not fun, we will change it." - Sid Meier

As a couple people, especially Dekita, mentioned - make sure there's an actual purpose for any mechanic you have in your game.  "It's realistic" doesn't count.  Simulations are supposed to be realistic.  Games are supposed to be fun.  Even simulation games prioritize fun over realism - the good ones, anyhow.

There are certainly good ways to implement such a system.  You could make weapons and armor break very easily, but make them cheap enough that the player can carry around many at a time - making equipment almost into semi-reusable items and allowing entirely new strategies with sets of weapons/armor.  You could go the World of Warcraft route and make armor degradation the main penalty for "dying" if you're using a Non-Game-Over system.  There are a lot of different creative ways you can make it into a fun or interesting game mechanic.

But if all it's going to do is present an extra chore to the player... why would the player want to play your game?  There are a lot of other chores they could be doing that are far more productive in the real world, and there are a lot of other games that don't demand doing busywork to get to the fun bits.  That's why, as game designers, we do try to streamline the experience for the player.

 

[Curia Chasea]

I already liked the answers of people I consider explained the issue.

If I remember one more solution of good use of repairs - durability can be used on equipment as "item mana". Technically, if the item bestows a special skill or attack, it can drain its Durability to use it. This happened in Summon Night Swordcraft Story 2. Also - you could win a fight against boss enemies by destroying their weapon (hence, durability on weapons). Repairs were FREE at your town, but you could buy repair items to carry into the field. So repairing equipment was not a hindrance and added an extra tactic when fighting bosses. 

 

[Alexander Amnell]

   Eh, it's okay as long as the mechanic has a purpose other than espoused pseudo-realism... I mean, if you want realism with equipment you should really probably take out equipment progression entirely (or make it a 2-3 tiered system at most) as realistically speaking in any given era there isn't that much of a distinction between similar weaponry to begin with; beyond that most proper armors were custom fitted for their wearer so walking into a dungeon and looting the epic armor off of a fallen knight or stealing it from that tough enemy you just killed would rarely actually be worth the effort considering how said suits were tailored.

   That said, I do like games where the equipment repair had a purpose to it and was done well. Fallout is a good example of that for me, you could take your weapons back to shop and repair them for a high price or use parts from similar weapons to repair them yourself... granted that doesn't really work for swords and such most of the time (I guess you could feasibly remove the chipped and broken axe-head and replace it with the found good one, but again then what distinguishes epic weapon # 1 from the common base axe from which you attained said replacement blade?) but there are other ways of making such a system work. One that I toyed with is having characters keep the same weapon throughout the game, but allow you to temper the weapon somewhere between 5-10 levels. Kind of like suikoden games only the levels would only be temporary and after a certain number of strikes the weapon would go down by 1 tempering level and continue to do so until you either repair/re-temper it or it reaches it's base, beginning of game level where it contributes next to nothing to said character's abilities in battle.

 

[whitesphere]

I find it incredibly amusing to try to bring "realism" to an RPG where it's considered a normal combat tactic to cast a fireball and try to roast an otherworldly dragon.  

In other words, as others have mentioned, a game which focuses on realism would be a profoundly different game which would incorporate all other realistic factors --- eating, bathroom breaks (after all, you can't use the bathroom in full plate armor!), tending your horse (there is a _LOT_ of work involved in keeping a horse healthy if you Google it), food spoilage (see: Nethack) and so on. 

Now, if you are trying to make a survival horror RPG, it might make good sense.  After all, that type of constant player tension is the core of the game.    Or just a straight survival RPG, maybe a Robinson Crusoe type of adventure, where the realism is the core challenge.   

There are really 2 excellent reasons many RPGs don't implement a lot of "realistic" mechanics:

1. Player preference.  If you have to micro-manage equipment and many other things, it can easily become overwhelming and frustrating.   

2. Developer effort.  It would take a lot of effort to add in all of these realistic effects.  And when developers ask the vast majority of players, they're really NOT interested in putting in that level of detailed effort.   So, why implement features that players don't want?

Also, I really like the Sid Meier quote above.   The (originally Maxis game) The Sims allows a LOT of micro-management.  But if you compare game iterations, the Sims get smarter so the player can micro-manage as much as s/he wants, but does not HAVE to.   This takes the frustration out of micro-management by making it completely optional.

If you go all out on realism, it would be like playing a game where you go to work, sit in an office for 8 hours and type up spreadsheets.  Now, take a trip out to the local bar for lunch!  Watch that Bladder meter!  For some reason it wouldn't be appealing for an office worker.  "Yay!  I'm playing a game where I can go to work!"