Weapon Durability: Yay or Nay

  • 189 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for SolidGame_basic
Posted by SolidGame_basic (24263 posts) 2 years, 3 months ago

Poll: Weapon Durability: Yay or Nay (118 votes)

Yay 43%
Nay 57%

Breath of the Wild has made gamers think differently about weapon durability that's for sure. Some like it, others hate it. Up until now, there haven't been a lot of games that have made it a big topic in the gaming world. I think Zelda does it well for the most part. It makes you actually use different weapons, which is great. I do think that the weapons are a bit too weak, but they shouldn't be much more durable than that. Which side you do fall on, SW? Are you for it? Against it? Are there any games that do it better?

Avatar image for Phazevariance
#151 Posted by Phazevariance (12334 posts) -

It works in BoTW because if weapons didn't break, then what would be the point of all the different weapon types in the game? You would just pick the one you like and use it until you find a stronger version of it. With it breaking after a while you are forced to use other weapons which all handle differently. It was refreshing, and allowed them to increase the different weapons available by quite a lot giving more variety.

Avatar image for hiphops_savior
#152 Posted by hiphops_savior (8471 posts) -

@Pedro: In BOTW, weapons are the level up system. Your Moblin club breaking just means you know you're going to get a better weapon soon. You have to consider whether a Royal Claymore is worth using against low level mooks but you eat its durability or use a weaker weapon as an alternative.

Avatar image for R10nu
#153 Edited by R10nu (1515 posts) -

@waahahah said:

I don't understand why it matters if its behind a mob or not.

Because this game is not just about combat.

I know, it's an outlandish idea that some people don't beat this game by mashing attack button at everything hostile.

@waahahah said:

Except your aoe doesn't have the same range as all the mobs.

You forgot "but you still have to press buttons".

This is so pathetically weak i'm not even gonna get into it.

@waahahah said:

I guess you don't see the stupidity in your response. They have a way of gating defense power that isn't tied to transient items... The defense for durability in weapons is there is no other way to possibly gate the player...

It's almost like you were too preoccupied with calling me stupid to reflect on the fact that the two are very different in how they're acquired, used in gameplay and upgraded.

@waahahah said:

@R10nu said:

Is this a problem to you?

You do understand that you just described every RPG ever made, right?

It does matter since its still completely one sided fight the durability affecting early/late game in general, you can just swap weapons and kill the mob as needed.

You're avoding the question.

@waahahah said:

Except in practice BoTW different weapons are fairly indistinguishable

Well, i guess if i was fighting red bokos at 70+ hours into the game like you do, all weapons would seem the same to me.

Luckily i'm not braindead.

@waahahah said:
The fact that you don't always need to or should have to be forced into wasting resources is just a problem.

It's not a problem, it's your opinion.

You expect a game to give you goodies for facerolling all foes you come across.

Some people don't. Some people like a bit of thought to be applied to the process.

@waahahah said:

You need weapons to fight enemies

Bullshit.

If you don't wanna waste good weapons, don't use weapons.

Couldn't figure out in 70+ hours, huh?

That's why your game design expertise ain't worth shit, my friend.

Avatar image for Pedro
#154 Edited by Pedro (34910 posts) -
@hiphops_savior said:

@Pedro: In BOTW, weapons are the level up system. Your Moblin club breaking just means you know you're going to get a better weapon soon. You have to consider whether a Royal Claymore is worth using against low level mooks but you eat its durability or use a weaker weapon as an alternative.

Not really. In a level up system your increased level has no negative impact when encountering enemies that are weaker. In your scenario there is a "penalty" for using higher tired weapons against weaker enemies.

Avatar image for waahahah
#155 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu said:

You haven't addressed any of my points. So to clarify.

  • The only thing that is kind of fun about the weapons is being able to pick up weapons and throw them around... but again, that has nothing to do with the durability, and could have been designed in differently allowing the same mechanics.
  • With the proper motivations weapon variety in combat could have been really fun but, again the combat lacks the need for variety in weapons people say it does. Forcing it on players is a cop out.
  • Dangerous mobs motivate the player to take a more creative approach to enemy encampments, if weapon durability was for that its not nearly as effective as being killed instantly by tons of mobs early in the game. A stronger weapon won't change that when mobs just chase you down. Your AOE's aren't large enough to just win with a strong weapon due to stamina/charge time, and they don't combat ranged mobs.
  • Weapons as temporary buffs don't work as well as a secondary resource applied to weapons. This gives the player more agency when you to use resources. If a fight is trivial and you only have good resources there is no need to force the player to spend on the mobs, and just works out as a downgrade.

And to clear up misconceptions you seem to have since it appears your assuming arguments on my behalf.

I did not say that mobs should drop permanent weapons, when I've talked about gating permanent weapon upgrades behind mobs I've talked about them doing it similar ways as the armor, or a separate temporary weapon up boosts. So the first half of your responses have gotten more and more pointless. The assumptions being that I'm saying they should just remove the durability system and allow us to hold on to a face roll weapon. Not at all what I've said.

I've also mentioned many times that the combat is pointless outside of needing mob resources. Again your assuming I just hunt down bokos all day which is pretty stupid in the context of the points I've made... I've only been forced into fighting 3 mobs... in 70+ hours (I haven't done the fourth temple). Combat is not something I partake in often, I pointed out the reasoning as almost always a downgrade for weapons and serves little purpose when you can just run around everything. The combat I did partake in I usually killed as many mobs with the environment (again look at my points, the mobs are generally dangerous so the durability had no effect on how I approached camps). When it came to fighting with weapons I just used w/e weapon I had equipped. It was not difficult to just spam attacks on most enemies and just use the next weapon. The only thing I changed when fighting guardians was use arrows on weak points, then spam attacks, or take out their legs. Again the durability system had not influence on what approach I took or which weapons I used. I don't consider it a choice when the game tells me to pick a different weapon because the one I was using broke.

You haven't brought up any points why the durability system has to be the way it is. And logic doesn't seem to be your strong suite so I don't exactly trust your judgment on my design skills. Either way I'm not exactly pushing the design that your arguing against so I'm not sure if its a communication issue or if your really that stupid.

Avatar image for Pedro
#156 Posted by Pedro (34910 posts) -

@waahahah said:
  • Dangerous mobs motivate the player to take a more creative approach to enemy encampments, if weapon durability was for that its not nearly as effective as being killed instantly by tons of mobs early in the game. A stronger weapon won't change that when mobs just chase you down. Your AOE's aren't large enough to just win with a strong weapon due to stamina/charge time, and they don't combat ranged mobs.

I just want to add to this by saying that Link has no momentum when attacking. Every time he attacks is locked in place. This combat choice adds to the problem in the bold.

Avatar image for bmanva
#157 Posted by bmanva (4680 posts) -

Giant fvck no

Avatar image for R10nu
#158 Posted by R10nu (1515 posts) -

@waahahah said:

So to clarify.

  • The only thing that is kind of fun about the weapons is being able to pick up weapons and throw them around... but again, that has nothing to do with the durability, and could have been designed in differently allowing the same mechanics.
  • With the proper motivations weapon variety in combat could have been really fun but, again the combat lacks the need for variety in weapons people say it does. Forcing it on players is a cop out.
  • Dangerous mobs motivate the player to take a more creative approach to enemy encampments, if weapon durability was for that its not nearly as effective as being killed instantly by tons of mobs early in the game. A stronger weapon won't change that when mobs just chase you down. Your AOE's aren't large enough to just win with a strong weapon due to stamina/charge time, and they don't combat ranged mobs.
  • Weapons as temporary buffs don't work as well as a secondary resource applied to weapons. This gives the player more agency when you to use resources. If a fight is trivial and you only have good resources there is no need to force the player to spend on the mobs, and just works out as a downgrade.

Sure.

1. You won't be picking up any weapons if you're full on weapons already and won't be throwing the ones that you have, since they're good weapons. No fun.

2. You're already motivated to use different weapons. They have different uses. I might agree that a sword+shield combo could use more downsides, but that's it. Forcing variety on players is not a cop-out. It's good design. Players naturally stray away from variety in favor of tried methods, it's your job to not allow them to do that as much as possible.

3. Being killed instantly isn't fun. The more a player tries to solve the problem in the moment rather than staring at a loading screen the better.

4. You don't really explain why. As a player you already have all the agency when to use resourses. You're just introducing a different mechanic and saying that it's better. Well i say it's not. It's a different mechanic that will have its own set of problems when you'll actually playtest it.

@waahahah said:

I did not say that mobs should drop permanent weapons, when I've talked about gating permanent weapon upgrades behind mobs I've talked about them doing it similar ways as the armor, or a separate temporary weapon up boosts. So the first half of your responses have gotten more and more pointless. The assumptions being that I'm saying they should just remove the durability system and allow us to hold on to a face roll weapon. Not at all what I've said.

I understand that and i addressed that. Weapons and armor serve different purposes and thus gated differently. Not rocket science.

In your proposed design, unless you want to use normalized gear which is the most boring shit an RPG can ever go with, there will be a permanent faceroll weapon lying somewhere where a player (or several) will be able to acquire it early on and ruin the game for themselves.

Do i need to explain why this is a flawed design?

In BOTW when you get a faceroll weapon early, you don't faceroll the entire game with it.

It becomes your special treasured emergency-only weapon.

Now that's good design.

@waahahah said:

I've also mentioned many times that the combat is pointless outside of needing mob resources.

And many times i invited you to explain why you think this is a bad thing and you couldn't.

@waahahah said:

It was not difficult to just spam attacks on most enemies and just use the next weapon.

And it didn't dawn on you that swinging a two-hander at lizalfos is the stupidest shit you can possibly do in this game, and the game offers a lot of possibilities for stupid.

In 70+ hours.

That's just sad, man.

@waahahah said:

You haven't brought up any points why the durability system has to be the way it is.

It's not like i posted a video which explains it in detail.

@waahahah said:

And logic doesn't seem to be your strong suite so I don't exactly trust your judgment on my design skills.

Coming from a guy that said that the game is broken because his armor is very strong at 70+ hours into the game.

Get the **** outta here, clown shoes.

Avatar image for waahahah
#159 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu:

1. You won't be picking up any weapons if you're full on weapons already and won't be throwing the ones that you have, since they're good weapons. No fun.

This isn't explanation as to why durability is the only design that makes this gameplay work. Because its not. Throwing weapons, and being able to knock them out of peoples hands as well as pick weapons up during fights is a system that isn't reliant on durability.

2. You're already motivated to use different weapons. They have different uses. I might agree that a sword+shield combo could use more downsides, but that's it. Forcing variety on players is not a cop-out. It's good design. Players naturally stray away from variety in favor of tried methods, it's your job to not allow them to do that as much as possible.

If i'm already motivated to use different weapons, than forcing additional "variety" isn't a choice made the player and they lose choice. I don't see why its a good design to force them to use different weapons. It does not force different play styles which is why the different weapons matter in the first place. 3 different weapon types and all I do is dodge/flurry and occasionally target with bows.

So again where is this 'variety' different weapons creates? The people that use them for different utility use it outside of the durability system. So again this isn't a good defense for the way the durability is implemented, and the system is superfluous for most of combat.

3. Being killed instantly isn't fun. The more a player tries to solve the problem in the moment rather than staring at a loading screen the better.

Ok, durability system has nothing to do with your defense, the game is implemented that way already. Until you get armor than you can blindly spam attacks with any weapon.

4. You don't really explain why. As a player you already have all the agency when to use resourses. You're just introducing a different mechanic and saying that it's better. Well i say it's not. It's a different mechanic that will have its own set of problems when you'll actually playtest it.

Weapons are resources and you never really have a choice not to spend them. As someone that doesn't combat often, if I want to attack mobs, I'm forced into spending resources I don't want to because I don't have any trash tier weapons. And I did explain why, having a base weapon that doesn't break allows you to always fight the way you want to fight (fun mechanics), and having additional resources to make it stronger allow you to choose to use the resources when needed. I dont' have a choice to fight without.

I understand that and i addressed that. Weapons and armor serve different purposes and thus gated differently. Not rocket science.

In your proposed design, unless you want to use normalized gear which is the most boring shit an RPG can ever go with, there will be a permanent faceroll weapon lying somewhere where a player (or several) will be able to acquire it early on and ruin the game for themselves.

Do i need to explain why this is a flawed design?

Apparently you still do not understand the design, again, I have never mentioned permanent weapons any where lying around. Again this is something your assuming. I'm saying that the durability system isn't the end all be all to the design goals. I've given a couple of thoughts, never a design for this. Again the best defense for the durability system is meeting specific design goals so I've pointed out those goals as either being already satisfied via other means making the durability system a clumsy redundant mechanic, and itemization that could be improved on as resource management in place of carrying 30 different that are nearly indistinguishable except in certain instances.

Do you understand why your arguing against hypothetical design YOUR creating for me?

And it didn't dawn on you that swinging a two-hander at lizalfos is the stupidest shit you can possibly do in this game, and the game offers a lot of possibilities for stupid.

In 70+ hours.

That's just sad, man.

Again more assumptions about play style... I'm pretty sure its stupid on your end at this point.

I'm avoiding combat unless I need resources for armor upgrades... I have more than enough weapons, even my kokori weapon is stronger than the ones lizalfos will drop... I don't have trash weapons that make most fights worth engaging in as its always a lossy situation.

It's not like i posted a video which explains it in detail.

You did, Its not like I'm arguing against the benefits of this system, I'm arguing there are better ways to do it which isn't talked about in the video. He, like you and others, are taking the design goals and thinking as if there is only a single solution to meeting those goals. You and others are objectively wrong if you say there are no other ways to do this.

Coming from a guy that said that the game is broken because his armor is very strong at 70+ hours into the game.

I've never stated that the game is broken for that reason. I've stated arguments against permanent over powered weapons in late game don't make sense when you have to go afk to lose most fights. IE one of the design goals is keeping the player relative isn't being met with the durability system that was stated in the video you posted. You can still end up with over powered weapons, and over powered defenses trivializing combat. The difference being you can lose your offensive power and it just drags fights out longer. Its not broken, its just not fun the way its implemented because it only half works part of the time.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#160 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36336 posts) -

Don't mind it after playing Oblivion as my first ES.

Avatar image for LustForSoul
#161 Posted by LustForSoul (6404 posts) -

I don't like it personally. It adds nothing to a game but monotonous weapon repairs or loss of said weapon.

Avatar image for aki2017
#162 Edited by Aki2017 (817 posts) -

In general I'm not a fan, but I do support it in BOTW. It is annoying that your fancy, latest weapon will surely break at some point, but it does force you to get creative as a result. Being forced to use all weapon types and your environment is fun and challenging ^ ^

Avatar image for R10nu
#163 Edited by R10nu (1515 posts) -
@waahahah said:

I've never stated that the game is broken for that reason.

Except this is exacly what you've said:

@waahahah said:
I mean the game is already broken with upgraded armor, my upgraded plate armor turns most lynels into big horses with tickle sticks.

As far as lying goes, that's a 3/10 for a bold attempt, 0/10 for execution.

@waahahah said:
I'm arguing there are better ways to do it which isn't talked about in the video.

Of which you can't categorically name a single one and when pressured you fall back to:

@waahahah said:
Apparently you still do not understand the design, again, I have never mentioned permanent weapons any where lying around. Again this is something your assuming. I'm saying that the durability system isn't the end all be all to the design goals. I've given a couple of thoughts, never a design for this.

It's like as if there's an alleged solution to world hunger in your head that you won't share, but give hints of, which all stink of pure unadulterated stupidity and when called out on it you weasel out with "b-b-but you just don't understand my design."

You can **** right off with that approach.

At the start of this i asked you for practical solutions to weapon gating that wouldn't be in conflict with the rest of BOTW's design.

2 pages later you can't list one.

I'm giving you one more post before considering you completely done.

Avatar image for waahahah
#164 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu:

Except this is exacly what you've said:

No this is what you assumed I meant in a leap of logic criticizing a system. There is a huge difference.

@R10nu:

How do you gate it without stripping the player out of that option (which is satisfying and rewarding to pull off without being game-breaking) and/or redesigning the game from scratch?

@waahahah said:
I mean the game is already broken with upgraded armor, my upgraded plate armor turns most lynels into big horses with tickle sticks.

As far as lying goes, that's a 3/10 for a bold attempt, 0/10 for execution.

Your missing the point of using your terminology against you, and your judgment of the mechanics would be considered game breaking because of the permanent upgrades. You know that whole thing about context that you don't get. Although to your credit its hard to judge sarcasm online.

Of which you can't categorically name a single one and when pressured you fall back to:

I guess you missed ever time I mentioned armor as a method already in game to gate a permanent base line for defense or additional resources to replace carrying 30 weapons. Neither of which break the core design that works and are fairly superficial changes to how you approach most of the game.

It's like as if there's an alleged solution to world hunger in your head that you won't share, but give hints of, which all stink of pure unadulterated stupidity and when called out on it you weasel out with "b-b-but you just don't understand my design."

You can **** right off with that approach.

At the start of this i asked you for practical solutions to weapon gating that wouldn't be in conflict with the rest of BOTW's design.

2 pages later you can't list one.

I'm giving you one more post before considering you completely done.

I mean my job is easier, your trying to prove something doesn't exist only citing things that exist.

My thoughts aren't a complete design, its just a couple of thoughts to prove the point with a little creativety you can easily replace some of the mechanics you'd lose from durability, and pointed out mechanics that are fundamentally unaffected by durability... so again your fighting the uphill battle. I feel as though my point is already proven. You don't understand the design because there isn't any. So talking like I'm speaking about a design means you completely misunderstand it.

Why wouldn't a different resource work?

Why wouldn't a couple of permanent/upgradable weapons work?

Your answer was that there would be a powerful weapon a user could find? But I never stated that there would be one. Look at the armor, its all well designed armor that the player can upgrade through exploration, health another permanent upgrade through exploration, bag space another permanent upgrade through exploration, but weapons shouldn't have an equal counterpart? Like how does it break the design?

The best counter is a powerful weapon will let you cheese through the entire game so it shouldn't give you that, but thats not the suggestion.

Secondly adding variety doesn't work as an argument. The concept of being reluctant to participate in 1/3 of the game is counterproductive to that design goal. And as far as game play style, people will play the way they want to play, the only people that get the most out of the different weapons are the ones that want to optimize their fights, the durability limits them in the end to the weapons that last the longest... Its not a system based on variety.

So again that leaves mostly resources for fights as the sole redeeming factor, which is easily fixable by expanding the types of resources, and adding more flexibility with a few unique weapons that are unbreakable.

Avatar image for R10nu
#165 Edited by R10nu (1515 posts) -
@waahahah said:
My thoughts aren't a complete design, its just a couple of thoughts to prove the point

A couple of thoughts don't ever prove any point, only a well though-out and put together argument does.

And you don't have any.

When you're criticizing a 4-wheel design of a car and proposing an alternative, you better have a fleshed-out concept at the ready.

Not "Well, i just thought, why does it have to be 4 wheels?"

"There are 2-wheeled vehicles out there, i'm thinking wouldn't that also work for a car?"

"Why wouldn't it? Can you elaborate?"

"I saw your video explaining the design of motorized vehicles, but i just couldn't agree with what been said."

"Are you too stupid to understand the design?"

"I got one of my car wheels stuck in a ditch once, isn't it a proof that 4 wheels just don't work?"

"Can you prove to me that 4 wheels is the best option?"

You've nothing to substantiate your position with and i've given you ample opportunity.

You're done.

Avatar image for waahahah
#166 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu said:

A couple of thoughts don't ever prove any point, only a well though-out and put together argument does.

And you don't have any.

When you're criticizing a 4-wheel design of a car and proposing an alternative, you better have a fleshed-out concept at the ready.

Not "Well, i just thought, why does it have to be 4 wheels?"

"There are 2-wheeled vehicles out there, i'm thinking wouldn't that also work for a car?"

"Why wouldn't it? Can you elaborate?"

"I saw your video explaining the design of motorized vehicles, but i just couldn't agree with what been said."

"Are you too stupid to understand the design?"

"I got one of my car wheels stuck in a ditch once, isn't it a proof that 4 wheels just don't work?"

"Can you prove to me that 4 wheels is the best option?"

You've nothing to substantiate your position with and i've given you ample opportunity.

You're done.

My argument is made are the weapon durability system is clumsy and intrusive, the additions I made make it less clumsy without violating the design goals by tweaking the current design. By still having weapon durability but not solely reliant on it for the vast majority of the game. Again, you failed to understand the bases of my point of view, continually assuming far more than what I've said or completely missing context.

Your analogy isn't even close to the situation we have. Considering a 4 wheel system is a long established design and we've tried 2,3,4,6.. its the easiest and most optimal solution for everyone needs. Nintendo is coming out with a weapon durability system that is a departure from the established design. So saying its the best and only way to handle weapon durability is objectively wrong. Not to mention gameplay is far more complex than moving a 2 ton object several miles... Nintendo has different design goals. IE if everyone is using wheels to move a 2 ton object, nintendo is using crappy wheels so you have to steal them from other people to be able to push a 2 ton object a mile before they break.

And there is a lot of flaws in the system, that you have yet to point out its the only way to do it. I'm sorry I have to spell this out for you.

The concepts of diversity in combat, weapon usage, approaches, the durability ends up either being unnecessary or counter productive. You haven't been able to refute those points.

The 1 huge plus of the design is sort of the scrappiness of fights, breaking weapons, knocking them out of peoples hands, picking up more. This benefit is hard to do without and ephemeral weapon system. But in practice, early game can be fun but it very quickly shifts in late game where your fighting more tanky enemies or have an assortment of better weapons then what they drop. This is where the system starts to fall apart. But there other ways making this work and since it only works in the early game its possible to design around that idea where late game has more permanent / reliable offensive capability. So after reiterating the critique I have with the system, a couple of permanent weapons that are upgradable will solve those problems without hurting the early game fun.

Additionally adding seperate resources for weapon boosts in place the TONS of weapons you find will reduce some of the clumsy/intrusiveness of the durability system. Another point I've been making about the resources used with weapons. A new point I'm making, this allows them to be a bit nicer about durability on weapons, you wont' carry as many weapons but have nicer stackable temporary weapon bumps.

None of these additions break the design but alleviate some of the problems it creates. Again the argument you and others have is this is a perfect system with no better ways to do anything, I've given you two additions to the design that are better in the long run how the game works in practice. This is the third or fourth time I've mentioned them to you, you've argued against a completely different design that you made up for my argument. Which now your clearly trying to avoid and use terrible analogies to change the conversation.

Avatar image for R10nu
#167 Edited by R10nu (1515 posts) -

@waahahah said:

The concepts of diversity in combat, weapon usage, approaches, the durability ends up either being unnecessary or counter productive. You haven't been able to refute those points.

First, the fact that you shrugged my replies off doesn't mean i didn't refute something.

Second, i don't need to justify to you why the systems in a game that gets perfect scores everywhere are well-designed and implemented.

You have problems with them, not me.

All i have a problem with is relating to your problems. Probably because my playstyle is very different from yours and i don't have any of your problems.

@waahahah said:
So after reiterating the critique I have with the system, a couple of permanent weapons that are upgradable will solve those problems without hurting the early game fun.

Alright, this is a bit better.

So you want champion weapons to be permanent or something of the sort?

If not, how do you obtain these permanent weapons? I've already asked this, how are they gated?

This is a make-or-break of your proposed system.

You see, the brilliance of the current system is in how fool-proof it is. This is why i'm comparing it to a 4-wheel car design, by the way.

There're no OP weapons because no weapon is permanent.

You can throw in any crazy-ass 999dmg Sword-Of-Death-Ray-Of-Vengeful-Diarrhea-Of-Hylia and it will break nothing in this game.

It's a self-balancing system and that's elegant and smart.

Now any permanent weapon is the opposite of fool-proof. Because BOTW doesn't have traditional RPG gear gating mechanisms, It's a fucking red barrel waiting to explode. And it's a barrel so big and so red that even the master sword needed to be made breakable, regardless of its other downsides.

Unless absolutely perfectly balanced, one of these perma-weapons will be all-in-all better than the others. That one weapon will become a cheesy go-to weapon very damn quickly.

And when you'll replay the game in the future you're not gonna be thinking "alright, where do i go this time?"

It's gonna be "ok, gonna get that fucking weapon first".

Soon enough people will find cheap ways to get it fast and upgrade it fast. And that's when your game has officially turned to shit. All because of a "small change".

The other thing is the permanent weapon is either useful and you only ever rely on it and forget that other weapons exist or it's clogging your inventory waiting for an upgrade.

And you propose there should be several of these. That's a lot of weapons (that are better stat-wise, but breakable) you're not picking up because of superficial shit.

And then the whole weapons-as-a-reward doesn't work so good anymore unless those are permanent.

And... and... and...

To sum it up, my general dislike for an idea like yours comes from the fact that it's a small change that solves little with potentially catastrophic side-effects.

People who harp on durability system in BOTW and come up with ways to fix it tend to not understand the latter part for being too short-sighted.

Avatar image for waahahah
#168 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -
@R10nu said:

First, the fact that you shrugged my replies off doesn't mean i didn't refute something.

Second, i don't need to justify to you why the systems in a game that gets perfect scores everywhere are well-designed and implemented.

You have problems with them, not me.

All i have a problem with is relating to your problems. Probably because my playstyle is very different from yours and i don't have any of your problems.

Problems that can exist for any one, just because your play style mitigates them does not mean they are'n design flaws, and the more you play this the less durability has an impact in game play outside of being an annoying mechanic.

I didn't shrug your replies off, you Ive been stating and reitering the same thing and pointed out whenever you started making up new facts or basically ignored something. Its impossible to respond.

If not, how do you obtain these permanent weapons? I've already asked this, how are they gated?

Already went over this... again see armor, its upgraded through resources gained through combat. You can't easily just have an upgrade armor and steam roll all enemies, but when you do, the balance gets tossed out the window.

This is a make-or-break of your proposed system.

You see, the brilliance of the current system is in how fool-proof it is. This is why i'm comparing it to a 4-wheel car design, by the way.

It's a self-balancing system and that's elegant and smart.

Its not entirely though since only 1/3 of the game works like this, and eventually your weapons last longer than enemies any way. I've already pointed out examples with armor and the stock of weapons you'll end up carrying that can supply a small militia.

So using your logic, the game is 66% broken with armor, itemization upgrades allow you to roll over enemies without worrying about anything.

Its not even close to being self balancing except for VERY early on when its hard to come by stronger weapons and you have very little permanent upgrades to play with.

Now any permanent weapon is the opposite of fool-proof. Because BOTW doesn't have traditional RPG gear gating mechanisms, It's a fucking red barrel waiting to explode. And it's a barrel so big and so red that even the master sword needed to be made breakable, regardless of its other downsides.

Apparently you missed gear / upgrade, the 4 magic skills you get that are on cool down, permanent health upgrades... I pointed those out already once, the weapon system is already sitting outside a bit more traditional item/skill systems.

Also going all in on a design concept doesn't validate the design as being the best possible iteration, or a good idea even.. It worked well in some aspects but not in others. Not to mention its entirely based on survival mechanics of other games. It may have a different paint of coat but stop believing its the only possible implementation that works.

Unless absolutely perfectly balanced, one of these perma-weapons will be all-in-all better than the others. That one weapon will become a cheesy go-to weapon very damn quickly.

Yes, lack of balance is lack of balance..

And your making more assumptions that the permanent weapons will be considerately more powerful... again adding additional information I did not state to refute my point.

It's gonna be "ok, gonna get that fucking weapon first".

People currently do this with the master sword because its a reliable weapon that they can use on a cool down, you don't have to fight that often so the cool down is negligible in most cases.

It completely breaks the 'fool proof' plan because it allows you to avoid spending resources, kill most enemies you encounter, and stock up on over powered weapons for when you need to kill a lynel.

Soon enough people will find cheap ways to get it fast and upgrade it fast. And that's when your game has officially turned to shit. All because of a "small change".

What exactly is the problem with that? This game has almost no replay-ability outside of speed running it... there is no classes, no interactive narratives, you can go any where right from the start... The game is all about finding stuff, you can just continue your save if you want to keep playing and finding more stuff you haven't found. And even if you have a permanent weapon, you still aren't going to just have it upgraded... it will take time and lots of combat like armor.

And even then the game has leveled spawns to some extent.. they could... spawn based on a gear rating (hidden from the user), the more armor/weapon upgrades you have the harder the enemies, the better the temporary resources they drop.

On A second play through a person can completely just gun it for certain armors, do a bunch of shrines and collect korok seeds and have a shit ton of resource before ever swinging a weapon. The other problem with your argument saying that if someone new exactly where a permanent weapon and new how to upgrade it, it would ruin the game. I just want to point out the replay value is already ruined basically knowing where almost anything is any way... A powerful sword isn't going to ruin any ones experience or trivialize the game in any way at this point, this worry is equates to complaining about bumping your head when your about to crash in a plane.

And then the whole weapons-as-a-reward doesn't work so good anymore unless those are permanent.

And now they have designed themselves into a corner with weapons being the only award outside of armor. Once more I've already mentioned additional resources and longer lasting weapons can alleviate this. For instance you can get a sharpening stone that applies 2x damage for 20 hits, or a fiery polish stone that applied fire for 20 hits.

Not to mention weapons don't feel like rewards when you find so many. The system barely works at all when you can treat your bag of shiny polished swords like a pack of potato chips. You might not have the same view, but that doesn't mean the game forces you to view it your way. Once you realize the game is bluffing and you can spam any weapon you want it stops mattering. Every chest you find that doesn't have a bundle of arrows or a piece of armor its a disappointment.

To sum it up, my general dislike for an idea like yours comes from the fact that it's a small change that solves little with potentially catastrophic side-effects.

Your entire post is based on the stupid assumption they'd implement ideas without re balancing any of the game adding 1 of the tweaks I mentioned and not consider the second tweak.

People who harp on durability system in BOTW and come up with ways to fix it tend to not understand the latter part for being too short-sighted.

Except none of my suggestions are really short sited, I've pointed out early game the desire is to keep the durability system intact while making it a bit more lenient on how many weapons you need to carry and use since it does get tedious breaking 6 weapons on a single group of enemies. The focus on the late game should be reliable weapons and better breakable weapons for those oh shit moments.

Most of your arguments are based on the video, which again really only push the benefits of the system in place without considering alternative ways to meet those design goes. The other major defense is the fallacy of believing a strong permanent sword will ruin the experience of zelda. Its not going to. The combat just isn't that important, and the only difficult part of the combat is the low survivability where the armor negates pretty easily. Even if you could upgrade an item slowly, balanced in such a way even if it is through spawns that the enemies will always drop items higher leveled, or being able to reward the player with more than just stronger items.. won't ruin this game at all. Its an amazing game.

As far as I'm concerned the weapon durability system is a massive crutch for overly simplistic combat, lack of enemy variety, and to add to the survival mechanics of the game. More utility itemization would have gone a long way with more interesting and rewarding combat. Items like decoys / traps / nets / ropes for tripping giants... These are all resources that would have been far better to have than a weapon with 2x damage you can spam attack and kill an enemy 2x faster. The capability in offence made little difference in most cases because the combat isn't that involved. For me its easy to see this game being able to be redesigned and be infinitely better where durability is a minor, early game mechanic, that can still work near end game but not be forced on the player nearly as much. The tweaks I made can are easy improvements to the current design that can alleviate some of the nuisances it creates in late game. But the core survival aspects are whats important a redesign can easily make the game better while still being true to the fundamentals of the video and other defenders of the durability perpetuate.

Avatar image for Starshine_M2A2
#169 Posted by Starshine_M2A2 (5176 posts) -

Nay. I prefer games that let you level up or mod and customise your weapon. I even give them names. My weapon of choice in Dead Space 3 was named Bluebell - cute but deadly.

Avatar image for R10nu
#170 Posted by R10nu (1515 posts) -

@waahahah said:

Already went over this... again see armor, its upgraded through resources gained through combat. You can't easily just have an upgrade armor and steam roll all enemies, but when you do, the balance gets tossed out the window.

You went over shit.

Do you fucking understand english, mate?

HOW DO YOU OBTAIN PERMANENT WEAPONS, QUESTION MARK.

Not how you upgrade them. That's not a question i've ever asked in this discussion, but you sure love answering it.

OBTAIN.

How do these weapons end up in your fucking inventory? Hello? Do you understand words or should i draw a picture for you?

This is the single-most important question and if you don't have the right answer to it, your proposed system is trash.

I'm not even gonna go over the rest of your drivel, you spent time typing up a wall of text to say nothing instead of answering questions that matter.

This here is prime example of you being a short-sighted fool who thinks he's a got some game design smarts.

Avatar image for bowserjr123
#171 Posted by bowserjr123 (2478 posts) -

If I made another Zelda game, I wouldn't keep it in there, but I didn't mind it as much as some folks on here.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#172 Posted by foxhound_fox (97964 posts) -

I grow rather fond of weapons when I play games. Durability to the point where the weapon disappears, that's a problem for me. Durability to the point where it does 10% damage and needs to be repaired? Not a big deal.

Avatar image for Sam3231
#173 Posted by Sam3231 (2566 posts) -

I feel like most people against it were already against BOTW to begin with. Before they even played the game, before it was announced, before they were born. etc.

Avatar image for Pedro
#174 Posted by Pedro (34910 posts) -
@Sam3231 said:

I feel like most people against it were already against BOTW to begin with. Before they even played the game, before it was announced, before they were born. etc.

One can say that there are people who are the exact opposite of what you described.

Avatar image for Sam3231
#175 Edited by Sam3231 (2566 posts) -

@Pedro said:
@Sam3231 said:

I feel like most people against it were already against BOTW to begin with. Before they even played the game, before it was announced, before they were born. etc.

One can say that there are people who are the exact opposite of what you described.

You mean the people that are actually for it? Too bad the poll doesn't have an I don't care/am indifferent option.

Avatar image for waahahah
#176 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu said:
@waahahah said:

Already went over this... again see armor, its upgraded through resources gained through combat. You can't easily just have an upgrade armor and steam roll all enemies, but when you do, the balance gets tossed out the window.

You went over shit.

Do you fucking understand english, mate?

HOW DO YOU OBTAIN PERMANENT WEAPONS, QUESTION MARK.

Not how you upgrade them. That's not a question i've ever asked in this discussion, but you sure love answering it.

OBTAIN.

How do these weapons end up in your fucking inventory? Hello? Do you understand words or should i draw a picture for you?

This is the single-most important question and if you don't have the right answer to it, your proposed system is trash.

I'm not even gonna go over the rest of your drivel, you spent time typing up a wall of text to say nothing instead of answering questions that matter.

This here is prime example of you being a short-sighted fool who thinks he's a got some game design smarts.

You mean you want to know how to pick an item up from a chest, or buy it from a shop.. LIKE THE FUCKING ARMOR SYSTEM I'VE MENTIONED 6 TIMES NOW. I'd actually prefer it to be bought in shops and just upgraded through lots of resources and never reaching the strength of weapons found in the environment. Its impossible to cheese the game that way.

Nothing you have said is a good defense for the design that's in place currently as being the best possible iteration or that the durability is even truly that important when considering the rest of the design. This is the most unbelievably stupid question since its pretty self explanatory from playing the game.

Your defenses have thus been

  • Variety which doesn't work out in practice, and its a redundant and a more clumsy implementation for variety, and designed around punishing the player not rewarding the player being counter productive to game play variety.
  • Survival mechanics! But they sort of give you an over abundance of items making it a useless mechanic most of the time, and is undermined through other more traditional systems in the game (see armor/health upgrades).
  • Cheesing the game and undermining combat which isn't all that difficult to begin with, and can already be "cheesed" via armor based on your definition. The combat just isn't that important of an aspect that the game would be ruined for any one. And its a completely stupid worry when looking anything up will ruin huge portions of this game.
  • Any tweaks will be balanced incorrectly even though your ignoring the game isn't balanced well especially during late game.

I have yet to see any counter arguments that address these directly. My initial argument was always against the beliefs perpetuated from the video. You can't just reiterate what it says without bringing more to the table as to why my reasoning is wrong. Saying your play style lends itself more to the system isn't a valid defense, saying they went hard on the design isn't a valid defense, restating the design goals isn't a defense to the flaws in the current iteration. Pointing out the armor is different is kind of stupid when that was the basis of my entire argument to begin with and how the differences matter.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#177 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (25253 posts) -

Weapon durability does factor into planning by making sure I have a backup plan in case my favorite weapon is rendered useless. It's not a problem in RPG/hybrids (Fallout 3, STALKER) where I can carry any number of weapons so long as I don't exceed my weight limit and I have means of repairing them.

It's a little more problematic in FPS games like say, Far Cry 2, where I have a set limit on the type and number of weapons I can carry. It's mitigated somewhat by NPCs also being prone to weapon jams. There were a few occasions where one of the bad guys in Far Cry 2 struggled with a weapon jam and my character just walked up and popped the guy between the eyes.

One more thing with Far Cry 2 is it also forced the player to deal with weather because if it rains and the main character is caught outdoors, most likely, the active weapon will jam afterwards. Whenever it started to rain, I put my best weapon away and got out my shittiest one. The flaw with the rain in Far Cry 2 is that it's tied to the player's actions. It won't stop until the player soaked in it unlike the rain in Far Cry 3 which comes and goes regardless. Weapon jams and rust plus avoiding them would have been great in Far Cry 3/Far Cry 4.

Avatar image for R10nu
#178 Posted by R10nu (1515 posts) -
@waahahah said:

You mean you want to know how to pick an item up from a chest, or buy it from a shop.. LIKE THE FUCKING ARMOR SYSTEM I'VE MENTIONED 6 TIMES NOW.

Oh, ok, so you just ruined the survival element of the game by introducing an infinite mining/woodcutting/hunting tool from a random fucking chest or a shop.

The reason you had to repeat this is because i refused to believe someone can be so braindead to actually suggest that.

This is why nobody will ever take your input on this seriously.

You can't see past your nose which is why your idea is confirmed trash.

According to you, i gave you the benefit of the doubt 6 times. That's 5 times too much.

You're done.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#179 Edited by mrbojangles25 (44044 posts) -

nay!

at least, not how it has been done so far. If equipment failed, broke, and degraded as often in real life as it did in video games, the world would be in poor[er] shape.

just...make the games more fun, and stop trying to make them "feature rich" by adding half-assed crafting mechanics or "depth" to them with weapon/equipment degradation.

I mostly just don't like the mechanic because it get's in the way of me enjoying the game.

Avatar image for waahahah
#180 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@R10nu said:
@waahahah said:

You mean you want to know how to pick an item up from a chest, or buy it from a shop.. LIKE THE FUCKING ARMOR SYSTEM I'VE MENTIONED 6 TIMES NOW.

Oh, ok, so you just ruined the survival element of the game by introducing an infinite mining/woodcutting/hunting tool from a random fucking chest or a shop.

The reason you had to repeat this is because i refused to believe someone can be so braindead to actually suggest that.

This is why nobody will ever take your input on this seriously.

You can't see past your nose which is why your idea is confirmed trash.

According to you, i gave you the benefit of the doubt 6 times. That's 5 times too much.

You're done.

Lol but I pointed out the survival element is pointless when it doesn't matter (imbalanced mid/late game),, you haven't refuted that point. Or the points where additional resources can make up for less reliance on weapons as resources, or even better itemization in more interesting utility. You haven't refuted those points. Your just ignoring my argument and latching on to pure stupidity. There are better ways to do survival mechanics, and you haven't even remotely come close to refuting that. Only given reason for the system in place like everyone else. Ignoring the flaws in the current system isn't a valid defense.

Even char has said the best way to handle the mechanic is basically ignore it completely, just use w/e weapon to get the job done. Those aren't viable suvival mechanics in the long run.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#181 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9732 posts) -

@R10nu: The mining and woodcutting tools always spawn at the same place, though. They might as well be infinite. It's just annoying when they break, really.

Avatar image for waahahah
#182 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@R10nu: The mining and woodcutting tools always spawn at the same place, though. They might as well be infinite. It's just annoying when they break, really.

Not to mention you don't need those tools once you get infinite bombs in the first hour of the game, long before you ever actually need those resources completely invalidating their purpose as a survival mechanic.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#183 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9732 posts) -

@waahahah: That's true, but if you use bombs to mine, you have to chase half of your ore down the mountain. I usually try to keep a sledgehammer on hand. With the axe, I just use it immediately until it breaks so it doesn't take a weapon slot. Trees are everywhere and wood is wood unless I'm missing something.

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#184 Posted by OhSnapitz (19282 posts) -

One of the few things I absolutely DESPISED in BOTW. I don't mind weapon damage but a) they should at least last longer than a few encounters. b) there should be SOME "legendary weapons" that don't break. This almost ruined Zelda for me..

Avatar image for charizard1605
#185 Posted by charizard1605 (82716 posts) -

@OhSnapitz:What did you think of the game overall?

Avatar image for waahahah
#186 Edited by waahahah (2462 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@waahahah: That's true, but if you use bombs to mine, you have to chase half of your ore down the mountain. I usually try to keep a sledgehammer on hand. With the axe, I just use it immediately until it breaks so it doesn't take a weapon slot. Trees are everywhere and wood is wood unless I'm missing something.

True, but we are talking about an annoyance for an annoyance. You only need the hammer for mountain rocks... so your trading chasing rocks for a fast travel. Its usefulness is a minor annoyance.

Avatar image for onewiththegame
#187 Posted by onewiththegame (4369 posts) -

Got my hands on Zelda the other day and I'm not a fan of how they handled weapon durability

Avatar image for trollhunter2
#188 Posted by trollhunter2 (2050 posts) -

the closest thing I disliked in the game BOTW

Avatar image for OhSnapitz
#189 Posted by OhSnapitz (19282 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@OhSnapitz:What did you think of the game overall?

..one of the best damn games I've ever played. I wouldn't put it above Halo, Resident Evil or FFVIII but it's definitely in the top 5.

Avatar image for anthonyautumns
#190 Posted by AnthonyAutumns (1685 posts) -

Depends on the mechanics. Betrayal at Krondor did it right. Your equipment degrades everytime you got attack (for armor) and every attack (for weapon). If you fail to repair the equipment and the durability becomes 0, the item becomes obsolete and unusable. That game came out more than 20 years ago.

In the classic Diablo, there was a green item set called Aegis, i think. Compared to the other equipments, it doesn't break. The only downside was it was not the best set/equipment in damage dealing.

Avatar image for asylumni
#191 Posted by asylumni (3302 posts) -

Well, since I'm over 100 hours in and it still annoys me, I think it's safe to say I'm a Nay.