Deathfire - Why have bind-on-equip items in a single-player RPG?

[wolfing]

it could be a 'soft' binding instead. Make it a penalty/bonus, when you first wield a magical weapon (fire sword, electrical mace, etc), you have a penalty using it, call it the 'learning' period. After a few fights the penalty wears off, and after even more fights, you have a bonus to that weapon. So, when getting a new weapon you have to make a decision, should I have Ragnor use this new weapon or keep his trusted old sword? You could even decide to use the new weapon for easy fights, just to get used to it, but maybe go back to his trusty old one for a boss fight because he's not used to the new one just yet... I would actually like that.

 

[DArtagnan]

it could be a 'soft' binding instead. Make it a penalty/bonus, when you first wield a magical weapon (fire sword, electrical mace, etc), you have a penalty using it, call it the 'learning' period. After a few fights the penalty wears off, and after even more fights, you have a bonus to that weapon. So, when getting a new weapon you have to make a decision, should I have Ragnor use this new weapon or keep his trusted old sword? You could even decide to use the new weapon for easy fights, just to get used to it, but maybe go back to his trusty old one for a boss fight because he's not used to the new one just yet… I would actually like that.

That would be better, but still pretty redundant. I don't think it will add enough to my experience to make up for the frustration.

But it's hard to say until I see it in action.

 

[Sacred_Path]

All these are mechanics that make people revert to saved games and now you have to save before equipping your characters as well. I think games should rather be trying to make it more feasible to play them straight up. There's not much point having mechanics that necessitate tedious management of save games and that allow any challenges in the game to be easily circumvented. I reckon, the fact you can't revert and so have to accept the consequences of your decisions is one of the main advantages that MMOs have over single player games - you always know an MMO is doing something right when people start whingeing about recovering from death penalties.

I'd say games shouldn't be designed around save/reloading in the first place, especially games with a lot of randomness as CRPGs are. But I don't see the issue here; if the player knows about the curse, he can make the informed decision to equip a weapon that would definitely help at the current stage, but might gimp the character in the long run.

 

[Roq]

Indeed - and I think magical and powerful items SHOULD be EXTREMELY rare, and they should require a serious effort to acquire.

My personal "dream design" for an MMO would include legendary items that are, indeed, legendary. Every uncommon item would be unique - and there would be no copy of it for thousands of people.

Items are content and cost a lot to put in MMOs. So this kind of thing, which services a tiny minority, just isn't worth it from the devs point of view. And immediately you start putting fancy items in games everyone is going to want one too and will get pissed when they can't get one doing whatever type of gameplay they prefer.

The problem is that "rewards" have become exclusively about item upgrades - and the challenge has become trivial. I would like the best items reserved for the players with the most skill.

But then you just create a double whammy - not only are "better" players better, but they also have better kit. This is another of those thorny dilemmas for MMO designers. Besides it's a very good way of alienating almost your entire player base who will mostly have pretty average skill, however you judge what "better" means - Usually in a PvE game more persistent grinder would be most accurate.

But it should be possible to acquire items from other players - either through trade or by outsmarting them, like stealing from them at an opportune moment.

that would be a *very* niche game and the dev forums wouldn't be lot of fun either .

 

[DArtagnan]

Items are content and cost a lot to put in MMOs. So this kind of thing, which services a tiny minority, just isn't worth it from the devs point of view. And immediately you start putting fancy items in games everyone is going to want one too and will get pissed when they can't get one doing whatever type of gameplay they prefer.

Oh, I know the mainstream audience wouldn't be comfortable with such a design - certainly not from the get-go. Well, depending on how it was executed. But no one big would want to finance such a game - because there's no precedent for success.

But then you just create a double whammy - not only are "better" players better, but they also have better kit. This is another of those thorny dilemmas for MMO designers. Besides it's a very good way of alienating almost your entire player base who will mostly have pretty average skill, however you judge what "better" means - Usually in a PvE game more persistent grinder would be most accurate.

It depends. "Better" players in this case would be about more than pure skill. It would be about creativity and there would be avenues of success that went far beyond just getting better items.

I'm not surprised it's hard to imagine, because no game has ever done anything even remotely like it.

I don't believe in catering to mediocrity - and I'm a strong proponent of having a far horizon - that everyone can aspire to.

There's a reason WoW was played by millions even in the beginning, when only a tiny minority had access to the high-end content.

I consider the whole "casuals need to be force-fed" ideology exaggerated and largely wrong.

If a game is sufficiently good in all the important ways - people will adapt, because they want to play the best game there is.

Again, that's why WoW became a success with the casual audience.

The changes Blizzard have made since are not proof that the vanilla design was all that bad.

that would be a *very* niche game and the dev forums wouldn't be lot of fun either .

I don't agree it would necessarily be a niché game if handled correctly.

However, it's more than likely never going to be created - so we'll never actually know.

 

[Kordanor]

Well the main problem is the item creation - and item destruction in MMOs.
If items are only created but never destructed there are only the best items left in the game and items which are not as good won't even be taken with you.
Themepark MMOs "faked" a destruction by binding items. Once the item is bound and replaced, there is no use for it anymore and it therefore gets destroyed. This wouldn't be the case if the item was not bound. It would be sold to the next, sold to the next and so on, even supercharging the item spiral.

In Sandbox games you don't have this mechanic. Instead you have a durability and at some point the item will be destroyed just by using it over time.

But Themepark MMOs, Sandbox MMOs and Singleplayer Games are three completely separate beasts.

 

[Polyester]

Not particularly sure it's that bad an idea. It all depends on how exactly it's implemented. Could easily turn into a horrible disaster, of course, if done just for the sake of having it around.

 

[rjshae]

They could also give all magic items a powers tree that improves their capabilities as you advance (and allows you optional enhancements). That way you can choose your favorite and stick with it.