Auto-Stats, Gear, and Customization.

[Scryer]

First lets discuss player-made stat choices. When a veteran ARPG player thinks about stat choices they think that it helps increase their customizability. They generally are able to build the stats in a way that the developer may have "over-looked" and create a class that is very specific, like a dagger/shield wielding mage that does melee damage.

However, most developers should develop the game around the novice player and then add depth to the game that the veteran player can enjoy. Also, custom stats, any variation of them can cause un-foreseen problems with the game's over-all power distribution. How does the developer know that the player has stacked an attribute indiscriminately or has an even # of attributes in every stat?

That would be hard to figure out and balance without a lot of testing.

So, custom assigned stats cause the novice player 2 things, it is hard to know what is best for your class, and it can get confusing when you want to wear a specific piece of armor but do not have the stats required to use them.

Why should a new player be forced to have any specific stat assignment just to equip level 2 gloves? Why should a new player have to go lurking around any web-site to try and look for "builds" that are considered "perfect?" In Diablo 2, if a novice played as a sorceress, they might think to put points into energy, that seems obvious right? However in just about every gaming strategy out there for the sorceress, the novice player has just made the wrong stat point allocation.

Another problem with self-assigned stats is that they are inherently hard for the game developer to balance. Will the player decide to skip 40% of vitality to place it into mana, or will the player have more strength then dexterity? (just examples). None of this is fun for the player when they can not wear those awesome boots they just found, when they cost 80 strength and only have 20 strength on their character.

So you ask me why not have a stat re-allocation ability? I give you one clear and concise answer - because it is totally unnecessary. It would be better to create a fun game that allows for maximum customization.

Auto-Stat Allocation.

Auto-Stats feel like they are the bane of the veteran ARPG player, but I feel like the veteran player is looking at this in the wrong way in 3 respects.

First of all, with auto-stat allocation the player has a much higher choice of gear to equip. How? Without forcing players to equip only items that they have the necessary points, it is better design to simply allow the player to equip gear that they have obtained the appropriate level for. Now there's a new paradigm in the game-play mechanics, how do you customize your character? By wearing the gear that have the stats that you want on them.

Secondly, the novice player is not so easily put off by the idea that they can't wear a piece of level 2 gear because they have not put the right stats in the "right" place. A novice will understand that the gear only requires you to be level 2 and once the player has reached that level they will be allowed to equip the item. This is how a game should be played, it should be fun knowing that you will be able to equip an item at the level it was designed to be equipped.

Third, for the game developer it is very easy to figure out auto-stats. The developer will know what level a character will be at and the maximum or minimum number of stats the player will absolutely possibly have at each and every level. It is now simply the job of the developer to make interesting modifiers on the gear so that it is not simply a stat crunching game. The developer will know for sure that you will be able to equip a level 85 piece of gear when you are level 85. The point of gear should be that it is fun to experiment with and customize your character with.
Finally, this frees up some of the balancing time and allows a developer to create other methods of customization that may be more fun or interesting then the former.

Gear In General.

I felt it appropriate to discuss 2 more topics here, though I know most will be against my previous suggestion, this suggestion is simple and elegant.

- Gear does not need to have durability.

- There does not have to be "ammo" ever again.

Durability was another way to break action in an Action RPG. Once an item broke you either had to return to town to fix it or replace it with a weaker item. Since games should not be in the business of going against the core mechanic of the game (Action) then durability as a concept should be thrown out the window. The same is true for ammo, why should a player have to break the immersion, and break the Action to return to town while in the middle of a big fight?

Here's another thought, sometimes games would let you know when an item is close to being broken, you would then return to town before it broke just to repair it. That is an unnecessary game-play mechanic that is not fun, you should want to return to town to do other things like crafting, but not simply to repair your armor or buy more ammo.

Ammo, has another problem all it's own. You may run out too quickly in an un-ordinarily long winded battle and have to break that Action and immersion by being required to return to town.

[Iceciro]

No offense, Scryer, but do you just not like the ARPG genre? You've got the most threads in the ideas forum for "Don't do this thing that's a staple of the genre".

[eisprinzessin]

#1 TQ has semi-auto-stats - when you level your mastery, you receive fixed bonuses. Additional skill points are for customisation. This is a fine mix. In case you will have nerfed your GD toon, please see the GD feature list (http://www.grimdawn.com/about_featurelist.php):The ability to spend money to reclaim skill and attribute points alleviates the fear and frustration of having to make early, uninformed decisions that could permanently nerf a character.I would fully support your idea, if we had to manage a whole party of characters.

#2 Durability and ammo are not in TQ ... did someone confirm, that they will be added in GD? I actually suggested: Optional - not sure if this is fun: White items are non-magical. They might take damage and wear out (turn grey) eventually. So you need to replace them from time to time. Any enchantment on them should return to your inventory.But that was under the premise of the rest of that post.

[Scryer]

No offense, Scryer, but do you just not like the ARPG genre? You've got the most threads in the ideas forum for "Don't do this thing that's a staple of the genre".

Well, I'm trying to make people think a little bit here, what is a staple of the ARPG genre? Actually if you think about it, the only staple that is true for all of them is that they have Action and RPG elements.

I'm simply trying to say that there are always better ways to create a game, and that just because other games in this genre have had similarities, the way they got those similarities alone is not why an ARPG is fun or even why any specific game mechanic is necessary in this genre.

What makes an ARPG game fun is the Action, and the elements of RPG that the player can enjoy, like being in a fantasy or dark fantasy realm. Specific mechanics that have always existed in this genre are only there because Diablo 1 put them there, it does not mean they are the best way to design a game or create one that is fun to play.

There's has been very little innovation in this genre, but I'm here posting to try and think of innovative ways to play the game that would be fun and not detract from the main focus of an ARPG - the Action first and RPG secondary.

I understand if not many people know why I'm trying to make these posts so controversial, but I must say that they are only controversial because they are new to the genre and may in fact play very well, we just don't have a way to measure that because these things have not all been done before in this genre. At least not in a way that would make them fun.

[ASYLUM101]

I don't mind auto-stats, IF it's a choice. If not, then this is an awful idea. I like being able to make my own classes, I play classes no one else will. I make melee fighters that focus on intelligence for maximum elemental damage. If I had an autostat placement based on my TQ masteries, storm and warfare, I'd be stuck with something way less than what I'd want. It doesn't allow you to have more choices, it restricts your choices actually. If you don't realize this already, most players enjoy following builds and stuff to the letter. Without that, it kinda ruins the game. Like others have said, allocating your own stats is part of the customization. It's the staple of the genre, name an ARPG that doesn't have stat allocation, I bet it failed compared to TQ or D2. Space Siege? Failed haaard.

Seriously though, how can you think this is a good idea? It really restricts and limits your choice in armor. If you remove the stat requirements on the armor, then the game just becomes silly. Then twinking would REALLY get out of hand. And I really don't see how a novice player would get discouraged by finding a piece of armor he can't wear... more like ENCOURAGED to grab a stat to wear that armor.


Durability, bad. We got that much. I like ammo however, and I think it's a neat aspect although SOMETIMES, rarely though, is it annoying. I've never really played much as an amazon in D2, but the little I did, I didn't find it annoying. I had 2 rows reserved for extra arrows and the equipped ones. So I had thousands of arrows, and really no worry of running out due to the arrow drops.

[Scryer]

Seriously though, how can you think this is a good idea? It really restricts and limits your choice in armor. If you remove the stat requirements on the armor, then the game just becomes silly. Then twinking would REALLY get out of hand.

First explain to me how this would even make twinking possible? If all gear has a level restriction you can't twink a character that is level 37 with a level 100 item that can't be used until that character is level 100.

How does it restrict customization? Once a character reaches level 30 the player will have multiple options to customize their character - They could place the gear on their character with the stats they desire, or they could place the modifiers on their character they want to at that level.

[myrmidon]

1st.all of this is a horrible idea.2nd.bows with unlimited ammo is....ok.... but its better to have ammo 3rd.Gear that breaks is fun....Its better to go to town and repair your armor.4th auto skills? I'm not sure if i read that right i dint really get it but if its auto placing skills to give you what you should get that's also horrible its better to find your builds and test it out with a lot of different characters just testing the builds your self......i find it kinda noobish that you have to go online to find out what builds are good you should just test them your self.5th. all of these ideas are a sign of laziness,not caring on what you do with your character. and that you should not play games if your to lazy to go to town and repair your armor or buy ammo......or even think of what you are gonna do what your skills and attributes :mad:

I am sorry if this is offending in any way to crate or posters of the web i am just saying what I think but some of you may think differently
sry:) i like it better when things are not reilistic all the way but slightly

[myrmidon]

and what asylum said is true. if it had ONLY LVL to use it then what? youd see a wizzerd running around with a warriors hat! stat requirements have to stay.

[Scryer]

1st.all of this is a horrible idea.2nd.bows with unlimited ammo is....ok.... but its better to have ammo 3rd.Gear that breaks is fun....Its better to go to town and repair your armor.

I understand that's your opinion, but knowing that this is an Action RPG, why should the developers create a game that breaks action by requiring the player to go to town to buy ammo or repair armor? It's not about laziness it's about game-play. What's more fun for the player, going to town because they have to or killing hoards of enemies?

Those aspects of the game (ammo and durability) are quite counter-intuitive to Action elements of the game.

[ASYLUM101]

First explain to me how this would even make twinking possible? If all gear has a level restriction you can't twink a character that is level 37 with a level 100 item that can't be used until that character is level 100.

Twinking is always possible. I have nothing against it, but here with this scheme it's even easier than before. At least with requirements you had to AIM for something. With level requirements being the only one, all it takes is for a character to reach said level, then you can easily twink and give him an item he can wear. It's STILL twinking. Level restriction or not, if that character didn't find the item, he's been twinked.

How does it restrict customization? Once a character reaches level 30 the player will have multiple options to customize their character - They could place the gear on their character with the stats they desire, or they could place the modifiers on their character they want to at that level.

Restricting the character because like I said, if you want to shoot for a pure intelligence warrior or archer, you wouldn't be able to. With a restricted skill tree that auto places your stats, you'd be stuck. Like my original example states, if I chose warfare and storm, each level would provide a meager boost to intelligence and energy from storm, and another meager boost in strength and health. Because of that, I couldn't be a very good caster OR warrior, unless I was able to choose my stat points myself.

I understand that's your opinion, but knowing that this is an Action RPG, why should the developers create a game that breaks action by requiring the player to go to town to buy ammo or repair armor? It's not about laziness it's about game-play. What's more fun for the player, going to town because they have to or killing hoards of enemies?

Those aspects of the game (ammo and durability) are quite counter-intuitive to Action elements of the game.

True, but you come to towns so often in these RPGs you'd be stupid not to pick up some ammo or repairs. Or, when you teleport to a town to pick up some potions, why not buy some arrows too? I personally don't really care for this feature, I think having ammo FEELS better. Repairing... meh. It's annoying if you're in a boss fight, but otherwise I never had much trouble with that in D2.

[Scryer]

It's annoying to have to get more ammo when you're on a boss too.

[heron]

In dragon Age, there's a special toggle button for auto-stats which some might find useful. I like the idea of having one for GD if that's possible.

[ASYLUM101]

In dragon Age, there's a special toggle button for auto-stats which some might find useful. I like the idea of having one for GD if that's possible.

Yeah, see, I wouldn't mind if it was toggle-able. I wouldn't use it anyway! But if it was mandatory it would be ultimate suckage for some of us.

[Jophilli]

Well I can definitely see where Scryer is going with this, and although the specifics of what he is talking about may be disagreeable, he has a good idea of how this game/genre could evolve into something better and fresh.

With lots of brainstorming and a little genius, Grim Dawn could become the new beacon of ARPGs. Ammo never was a big deal to me, but repairing always seemed tedious and really pointless.

Stat customization should really stay that way, however, I like the idea of finding a new way to customize characters rather than worrying over how every little point is spent. It used to be fun as a kid, but then when I got older and realized that it was essential to follow builds almost to a tee--well, I really despised it. This is a really interesting issue for me... but I've never quite thought of a way around it.

[medierra]

#1 TQ has semi-auto-stats - when you level your mastery, you receive fixed bonuses. Additional skill points are for customisation. This is a fine mix. In case you will have nerfed your GD toon, please see the GD feature list (http://www.grimdawn.com/about_featurelist.php).


Eisprinzessin pretty much sums up my stance. The masteries provide some base stats important to each class to limit the extent to which notice players can screw themselves. I think this provides an acceptable balance but still allows for customization and still allows people to make mistakes

Why would we want to allow people to make mistakes? We actually argued about this a lot when developing TQ. However, my belief is that when players feel like they can't made a bad decision, they also totally loose the satisfaction of feeling like they made a good decision. Part of the addition of these types of games is figuring out how to beat the system or how to do things better than the "other guy". Even for those playing single-player exclusively where there is no real "other guy" players still take a lot of satisfaction in feeling like maybe they figured out a better build than most people. There is also a certain satisfaction to allocating points so that you can finally use this great item you found. When you level up and can use an item it is rewarding but doesn't quite have the same level of satisfaction because you aren't directly making any sort of decision.

So, our goal is to try to minimize the degree to which bad decisions can reduce a players ability to make it through the game while still maintaining the perception that it is possible to make decisions that could result in a better or worse character build.

And really, most novice players will have no idea that their character isn't built in the most effective way possible. So long as their character is effective enough to plod through normal difficulty, that is pretty much all that matters.

In observing casual players playtest TQ I rarely saw stat allocation become a problem. The only time stats really had a major adverse effect was when people severely neglected OA and DA. We've changed the way probability to hit works in GD and that sort of thing shouldn't be as much of an issue. The really crippling decision players made was to hold on to low level unique items far FAR beyond their usefulness because they looked cool. So you'd have a level 40 character still fighting with a level 5 unique sword that dropped 10mins outside the starting town. Why? Well it looked cool and it gave these awesome stats like 5% fire resist and +10% damage. Meanwhile base damage would be 12 while common items available at the store had base damages of 150.

I understand the mantra of accessibility. It was all the rage in early 2000 after someone, somewhere finally figured out games were so unnecessarily complicated, unintuitive, and punishing that they turned off a lot of players. However, now you see developers occasionally taking this concept to the opposite extreme. There is a fine line and where that line is depends on the audience you're developing for.

In his famous rant about piracy Brad Wardell talked about building not for the total user-base but for the customer-base that would actually pay for your product. The same I think is true of accessibility. I think companies sometimes fool themselves into thinking that if they make the game so accessible that "your grandmother could play it" that millions of grandmothers will actually buy their game. The problem is that if will never cross the mind of most grandmothers or other non / ultra casual gamers to randomly go pick up a dark gritty ARPG. So, accessibility is great but design first for the core audience you know will buy your game and don't go to extremes.

[medierra]

With lots of brainstorming and a little genius, Grim Dawn could become the new beacon of ARPGs. Ammo never was a big deal to me, but repairing always seemed tedious and really pointless.


We're good at making things better and incrementally improving. Crazy new ideas are better left to those with lots of time and money to experiment.

When we come up with a big new idea that just seems obviously, all-around good, we sometimes take a risk. However, we're really not in a position to start shaking things up and trying to innovate for the sake of innovation. To make big leaps in innovation you really need to do a lot of research and development. If you have a big new idea, you need to spend extra time and resources ($$$) implementing, experimenting, and fine-turning. There is always a risk that some seemingly great idea is going to have unforeseen indirect negative impact on another aspect of the game. For every million revolutionary ideas people have, generally only 1 of them works out. Usually some small, artistic, innovative company pioneers this great new idea but creates a product that is also filled with lots of new terrible ideas. They flop. Then a more established company see the product, takes the one good idea from it, polishes and perfects it, and is hailed as a great innovator. Such is generally the way of things.

So, that said, I think we have some cool new ideas that you'll eventually be hearing about but they're generally safe things that we are 98% certain people will love. Making fundamental changes to systems that people already enjoy just seems like an unnecessary risk with little upside.

Repair and ammo were things we could easily decide to do away with on TQ because many people hated it and the vast majority of people who liked those things, didn't really care about them very much. It was a win / no loss move. That's what I like... although, ill take win / win when I can get it. ;)

[Chameleon]

We're good at making things better and incrementally improving. Crazy new ideas are better left to those with lots of time and money to experiment.

When we come up with a big new idea that just seems obviously, all-around good, we sometimes take a risk. However, we're really not in a position to start shaking things up and trying to innovate for the sake of innovation. To make big leaps in innovation you really need to do a lot of research and development. If you have a big new idea, you need to spend extra time and resources ($$$) implementing, experimenting, and fine-turning. There is always a risk that some seemingly great idea is going to have unforeseen indirect negative impact on another aspect of the game. For every million revolutionary ideas people have, generally only 1 of them works out. Usually some small, artistic, innovative company pioneers this great new idea but creates a product that is also filled with lots of new terrible ideas. They flop. Then a more established company see the product, takes the one good idea from it, polishes and perfects it, and is hailed as a great innovator. Such is generally the way of things.

So, that said, I think we have some cool new ideas that you'll eventually be hearing about but they're generally safe things that we are 98% certain people will love. Making fundamental changes to systems that people already enjoy just seems like an unnecessary risk with little upside.

Repair and ammo were things we could easily decide to do away with on TQ because many people hated it and the vast majority of people who liked those things, didn't really care about them very much. It was a win / no loss move. That's what I like.

Scryer needs to read the bolded/underlined sentence. As much as I enjoy reading Scryers ideas, as Medierra has indicated, most of them are just to risky for Crate to pursue. If they had an unlimited budget and years to test then maybe they could...

[Sandirk]

not keen on auto stat allocation, as stated by others if it was optional not so bad.

as a twist on the idea maybe you could map your choices out ahead of time (like with the talent tree planner thing common to MMORPG games) and when you leveled it just applied the choices you had previously chosen instead of having to stop and level up in the midst of combat (also make this optional for people who like things the way they are)

on the plus side if it gave you an indication of all the stats that are effected by the change it could give you a good indication if pumping a heap of points into strenth would have the effect you desire.

[Chameleon]

I'd be happy with a zero stat allocation system.

Here's an idea, how about one that you could rearrange on the fly. I mean, the stats are allocated for the class you are but say you find an awesome equip with way more Dex than you have (as you are a mage with low dex) so you can take points out of Int and put them in Dex until you have enough to wear it.

So you have a "pool" of stats that you can move around to suit your needs as they arise. Any stat can be lowered or raised at any time but the total stas are the same...duno if that makes sense.

[Sandirk]

Durability was another way to break action in an Action RPG. Once an item broke you either had to return to town to fix it or replace it with a weaker item. Since games should not be in the business of going against the core mechanic of the game (Action) then durability as a concept should be thrown out the window. The same is true for ammo, why should a player have to break the immersion, and break the Action to return to town while in the middle of a big fight?



I can see where you are going with this but find it at odds with the "Danger" element you were hoping to acheive by removing town portals.

managing your inventory, gear and ammo is part of that if you are not paying attention and start a fight with a boss with only 3 arrows, a broken helm and no health potions left you are likley to die but you have no-one to blame but yourself.

as a middle ground maybe you could have unlimited basic ammo on an item but have better ammo that works on a limited qty meaning that you will be at a disadvantage if you are not paying attention but not in a hopeless situation.

[Scryer]

Thank you for the constructive post Medierra. I think you did bring up a lot of good points, and I think you had a pretty well thought out reasonable post not strictly based on your own opinion, and that is awesome.

Chameleon, I did read that “Making fundamental changes to systems that people already enjoy just seems like an unnecessary risk with little upside.”

However in the same paragraph he mentions that “When we come up with a big new idea that just seems obviously, all-around good, we sometimes take a risk.”

So, while Crate is obviously not in the position to innovate, they are indeed in a position to make the game more fun and interesting to play. I don’t believe great game-play comes from innovation alone and I certainly don’t believe that a gaming company needs to expend time on things that might not work.

However, there are certain things that can work, and would be a plus to the game as a whole. I think that some of what’s being said on this board alone are great example.
I can’t point to anything specifically but I know that there are a lot of ideas that sound very much like a win-win for the developer and the player.

I have to say though I’m wondering what company might actually believe a grandma would buy any game? Haha! That’s a good example of a company taking that idea to the extreme though.

I still feel that risk-benefit is something better left on the playing field and not left to character development. Character development should not be painful, and suffering in higher difficulties due to bad character development decisions is never fun. Risk is more fun to have while you’re out killing enemies, will you survive? That kind of danger is lost in this genre, and I’m sad to see it absent. Character development should probably be fun and give the player options to customize their hero.

Just something to think about.

[ForNein]

@Scryer

There is this game coming out called Diablo 3. I think you'll like it.

[Scryer]

Yeah... I'll like this game too, knowing that I'm here trying to help.

[myrmidon]

I understand that's your opinion, but knowing that this is an Action RPG, why should the developers create a game that breaks action by requiring the player to go to town to buy ammo or repair armor? It's not about laziness it's about game-play. What's more fun for the player, going to town because they have to or killing hoards of enemies?

Those aspects of the game (ammo and durability) are quite counter-intuitive to Action elements of the game.

Like you said its just a mater of opinion these are mine i like it when its reilistic but not like realy realistic (:

[Scryer]

Right opinion, that is true.

However realism is a very nominal thing in most games. Making a game fun I would hope is more important then realism. Especially in this genre that the main point of playing the game is to progress your character, and have fun battling enemies.

This is one of the things I liked about TQ.

[ASYLUM101]

I don't really see how needing ammo and repairs detracts from having fun though. Reduces your time killing things, sure but you needed to head to town anyway. *shrug* It's not like it'll be in GD anyway, no need to worry.

[Scryer]

I know it won't be in GD, that I'm happy about, however I think it's a pretty interesting topic to discuss.

I would love for someone to answer this question -

How does durability and ammo not detract from the goal of an ARPG, when the goal of an ARPG is to have plenty of Action primary and RPG secondary?

I guess that's an arbitrary question, I could reword it -

How does durability and ammo not detract from the goal of an ARPG when the goal of an ARPG is to have plenty of RPG elements primary and Action secondary?

So that's one way to turn the argument on it's head. But by definition an ARPG must have enough action to even be considered an ARPG. So, the question is then, what makes a fun Action RPG game? The one answer that always comes to my mind is that - A fun ARPG game is one that does not unnecessarily break the action of the game.

[ASYLUM101]

I'd have to disagree with you, because action doesn't make up the game. It's the gameplay and immersion that makes up the fun factor for me. By removing the need for arrows, I don't feel as in tune with my character as I would if I were playing say, Diablo 2 or Oblivion, or Morrowind for that matter. I guess for an action rpg it's a bit different from the latter two, but like I said, I enjoy a game that can fully immerse me into the story and gameplay. By detracting from the onslaught of action that you so desire, you're getting a better feel for the game. Since you'd have to return to the town to complete a quest anyway, or to get a potion, or whatever, you might as well visit the blacksmith to check out the ammo or weapons or armor.

Like others have said and I'm sure you're well aware of, it's an opinion based factor, and obviously you can't please everyone.

[Scryer]

Well, TQ didn't have those aspects of the game and at times felt very immersive.

Diablo 2 on the other hand, was always busy, you had to go back to town for this, go back to town for that, sometimes in the middle of what should be a fun boss fight. I think those kind of mechanics take away from immersion and take away from the feeling of glorious battle.

I don't think it was right that during a boss fight like Diablo that I run out of arrows - returning to town to buy them wasn't very fun, it broke the action and the immersion.

I don't think that's acceptable game play. Actually it doesn't make sense that normal fighters would whisk themselves away to town during the heat of battle just to replenish their stocks of arrows, it doesn't make sense.

[TheRani]

A certain amount of realism and micromanaging is tolerable, but be very careful about adding too much of it to an Action RPG, or implementing it in such a way that it does not add at all to the fun, or even ends up being annoying.

I highly recommend that if you want to include ammo, make ammo creation a skill that your ranged classes can learn, or make it drop very, very frequently from ranged enemies in the game. Do it in a way that doesn't make it a pain to play a ranged attacker.

If you want to include weapon and armor breakage, include repair skills in the game, or make repair kits be readily available in stores that can be used to patch up a breaking piece of equipment while you're in a dungeon.

If you want to make frequent stops in town for repairs, medical attention, bullets, etc. necessary for characters in order for them to be successful, then please, for the love of all that is holy, do not also make it a pain in the rear for them to go back to town as often as necessary.

If you want characters to stay out in the field for a long time and make it unnecessary or impossible for them to go back to a town without serious backtracking, then make it possible for them to be as self-sufficient as possible, and give them a huuuuge backpack.

Trying to make an action RPG too realistic without making characters suitably capable of dealing with the realism in ways that are not annoying to the player, will Not make for a fun game. To me, making your character have to stop and get their armor repaired adds about as much to the game as making them need to stop to use the restroom. I'm cool with things like armor repairs and ammo purchases/construction be things that your character handles when you're not looking. Just like their bathroom breaks. You know they have to happen, but must the player be part of that process?

[eisprinzessin]

I highly recommend that if you want to include ammo, [...] make it drop very, very frequently from ranged enemies in the game. This sounds fun. Ammo could level (like potions) and I'd like to be able to select the sort of ammo I'm going to spent.

I have to say though I’m wondering what company might actually believe a grandma would buy any game? Haha! A friend of mine (60+, is grandma) actually enjoys playing computer games (TQ, Sacred, Divine Divinity, etc). She will probably wait for the German translation, but if the blood'n gore does not repel her, then she will buy GD, too.

[Roros]

My dad is 65 and he still plays games. I bought Dirt2 for him for christmas and he's been playing it 3-4 hours a day.

He's not much into rpg's and such though because he has a hard time with fantasy settings. He played through Tomb Raider Underworld and one of his criticisms was that it was a little too "imaginative".

[Scryer]

I think your father would love Diablo 3... though.. maybe not.. give him a Diablo series book to read and that might change his mind... lol

I don't know.

[Iceciro]

Well, I vehemently hate repair/durability systems in games. Even in Oblivion, where I can repair stuff anytime I'm not in a fight with my repair hammers, it just cuts into the action. And it's especially irritating because there, the only way to know you're about to get boned out of your +2 Sword of Face-Beating is to check your inventory. I also don't like the paper doll color system. My issue is, there's absolutely nothing gained by durability except a time and gold sink, and I hate it a lot. At least in Oblivion there's a skill tied to it, and at high enough skill levels you can over-repair stuff in order to make it hit things harder.

As for Ammo? I'm fine with unique ammo that does more damage and comes in limited quantities - 20 rounds of +2 arrows is just fine, for example - but I never want to run out of basic ammo. Screw realism, when my archer runs out of arrows, I run out of fun. Basic fact, it's a video game, not a simulation, and I'm supposed to be killing huge hordes of enemies all the time. Running out of standard ammo means I've just run out of damage, and that generally means I am dead, or at least trucking back to find a merchant or something. Sucks. There's nothing gained if you make it common other than that archers now have to take up inventory slots with large amounts of basic ammo. If it's not common, then it's irritating to me.

[Roros]

Durability and repair is something I feel only has it's place in mmo's when you want to encourage or enforce player interdependency. In a solo or fast paced coop game, I don't see it having a place at all other than as an arbitrary money sink or busywork.

I've seen some games try an alternate take on it by having your weapon consume some mystical energy that needs repleneshing in order to deal more damage. When you run out, you can still fight normally but at a slight penalty. I feel this was a nice alternative to "ammo" or durability in a lot of ways considering it works for both melee and ranged and doesn't shut you down completely once you run out, and it's easy to come up with classes who can magically replenish it at the blink of an eye.

[TheRani]

Well, I vehemently hate repair/durability systems in games. Even in Oblivion, where I can repair stuff anytime I'm not in a fight with my repair hammers, it just cuts into the action. And it's especially irritating because there, the only way to know you're about to get boned out of your +2 Sword of Face-Beating is to check your inventory. I also don't like the paper doll color system. My issue is, there's absolutely nothing gained by durability except a time and gold sink, and I hate it a lot. At least in Oblivion there's a skill tied to it, and at high enough skill levels you can over-repair stuff in order to make it hit things harder.

If they can't find a way to make durability Add to the fun, instead of subtracting from it, they should absolutely leave it out.


As for Ammo? I'm fine with unique ammo that does more damage and comes in limited quantities - 20 rounds of +2 arrows is just fine, for example - but I never want to run out of basic ammo. Screw realism, when my archer runs out of arrows, I run out of fun. Basic fact, it's a video game, not a simulation, and I'm supposed to be killing huge hordes of enemies all the time. Running out of standard ammo means I've just run out of damage, and that generally means I am dead, or at least trucking back to find a merchant or something. Sucks. There's nothing gained if you make it common other than that archers now have to take up inventory slots with large amounts of basic ammo. If it's not common, then it's irritating to me.

Same thing here. Find a way to make it fun, or leave it out. TQ is awesome and doesn't have item durability or ammo. There's a lot of stuff that happens in real life that doesn't happen in video games, and I'm cool with just letting that stuff happen off-camera or something. When was the last time you played an Action RPG that made your character stop for rest? Carry around a tent and bedding and whatnot? Surely it's not realistic for them to walk all the way from Helos to Sparta without stopping for even a nap? But I have no problem with it. They do that stuff when I'm not looking, far as I'm concerned. When I save the game and turn it off, they're taking a nap, using the bathroom, repairing their armor, sharpening their sword, buying arrows, etc.

[Scryer]

I agree, but I think permanent ammo would work as an awesome way to give the ranged player extra options to customize their attacks.

Like an ammo for specific elements, like poison and ice. When the ranged player has these equipped the ammo apply that type of elemental damage to his abilities.

But yeah, I never liked mechanics that keep the player out of action.

[yerkyerk]

Permanent ammo-modifiers sound good (wouldn't want them to deplete either actually).
Explosive, armor-piercing, hollow-point, liquid nitrogen, poison, explosive, incendiary... :D

I suspect medierra was already looking into that though.

[Jophilli]

I guess I was a little vague with my statement about "brainstorming and genius." I know that Crate can't take great risks with the budget they have. I was just saying it to accent what Scryer was trying to get across.

I already know that Crate is going to handle this the right way. Titan Quest was fun to play, as well as a testament to art direction in gaming. That's what made me love the game. There were other issues that kept me from hailing it a personal favorite over Diablo, but I'll leave that for another thread.

For me, one of my favorite niches of Action RPGs (specifically in console games, for example Secret of Mana) was the ability to increase the proficiency of skills and the use of weapons by simply using them. I think it would be fun to see something like that in Grim Dawn. I know that Dungeon Siege did this, but I never really got into that series.

Basing the idea off of what Medierra said about how people would hold onto cool-looking items, I think that this could alleviate some of that problem. I found myself not wanting to part with Epic and Legendary items simply because they were so unique, but in reality, I could often modify Green items and they would be WAY better than any Blue or Purple. Perhaps if the more somebody uses a unique item, the more powerful it could become! Or an even simpler solution to this problem would be to allow players to modify Unique items so that they don't lose their usefulness so quickly.

Any more ideas as to how to implement a "proficiency" system in a game like this?

[Scryer]

A proficiency system sounds pretty interesting. I kind of wonder if it's possible to make a very big loot based game and only affect the weapons. So the player can use certain weapons they prefer (like early level weapons) rather then trying to try and find a higher level weapon every time they gain a new level.

Hard to explain I guess.

I found this awesome looking weapon with stats on it, maybe the proficiency system can make that weapon just as worth-while as a weapon I find later in the game of the same type. Maybe the new weapon might offer different and interesting modifiers.

I'd have to think this out a little more to see how it might work to benefit the game though.

[yerkyerk]

That idea was also discussed here;
http://www.titanquest.net/forums/grim-dawn-suggestions/32992-mastering.html

Most people seemed to like the proficiency idea with weapons/armor.

Anyway, if you want to discuss that topic I suggest making a new thread, lest it be delved under this, somewhat unrelated thread.

[TheRani]

It would be neat if unique weapons and armor could level up with your character. Perhaps a character could spend lots of money upgrading their unique weapon, causing its abilities (and level requirement) to scale up accordingly. Since there'd be no downgrading, it'd make the weapon less twinkable, but if they liked the look or stats of an item, they could use it forever on that character if they wanted. Or maybe just until they got to the right level for some other higher level unique they like better. It'd be a spiffy money sink.

[djolar]

I actually like the way that TQ increased stat points important to the class in the mastery line. I could see a switch though that would basically have auto stat assignment where it wouldn't let you assign stat points and give you a boost to stats you get from the masteries or adding more stats to the masteries to help novices make more well rounded characters without nerfing themselves. It would definitely be a switch that you can turn off though.

As far as weapon leveling, what a lot of games are doing now kills two birds with one stone. If you allow players to transfer stats from a looted item to one they have equipped, you can both allow the player to keep wielding the weapon they like the look of and it allows the player to use loot that was previously restricted to other classes.

This is also unlike upgrades that just boost the current stats or increase its level which has the side effect of lessening the need to find more and better loot. (a principal reason for playing ARPG's) It also preserves class specific weapons. (you can transfer the stats but still can't equip the item if its class specific)