Repair and Durability

Now that we have seen changes to this system, there are a few questions I have about how it works...

1. Does the durability drop in an item after repair have anything to do with the lvl of research you have? e.g. A master smith has a better chance of a smaller drop in durability when repairing than a novice.

2. Does repairing the item early have any bearing on the durability drop? e.g. repairing at 2 rather than when broken (this does not seem to be the case, but thought I would get clarification)

Then as a suggestion:

Some items we craft aren't so good (not that the game isn't its just it might not be what we were looking for) . We know that soon we will be able to sell items to the merchant for gold, why not have a way to scrap the item for fragments. Now, of course you would not be able to get 1:1 but perhaps 1 or 2 salvaged if you decide to scrap instead of sell. This way items that do not help you (str and melee items for archers) could be recycled. You could even drop them a lvl of power, restricting godlike items. So if scrapping a godlike sword for light inf you got 1 epic and perhaps 1 rare fragments.

I enjoy the crafting aspect of the game, and it is certainly costly in terms of gold, but higher level fragments are hard to come by as well. It also would allow those broken items some reuse other than paperweights.

Quote :

1. Does the durability drop in an item after repair have anything to do with the lvl of research you have? e.g. A master smith has a better chance of a smaller drop in durability when repairing than a novice.

Durability loss has nothing to do with any tech. It is a random roll.

Quote :

2. Does repairing the item early have any bearing on the durability drop? e.g. repairing at 2 rather than when broken (this does not seem to be the case, but thought I would get clarification)

No effect, but take into consideration the fact that every time you repair an item it loses max durability, therefore you wouldn't want to repair it all the time, but only when it reaches close to 0. We are considering the possibility that if an item reaches 0 durability (not max durability), the repairing it would decrease its max durability even further, so it would be wise to repair it before it actually "breaks".

Quote :

Some items we craft aren't so good (not that the game isn't its just it might not be what we were looking for) . We know that soon we will be able to sell items to the merchant for gold, why not have a way to scrap the item for fragments. Now, of course you would not be able to get 1:1 but perhaps 1 or 2 salvaged if you decide to scrap instead of sell. This way items that do not help you (str and melee items for archers) could be recycled. You could even drop them a lvl of power, restricting godlike items. So if scrapping a godlike sword for light inf you got 1 epic and perhaps 1 rare fragments.

We had made some discussion on that matter, and some from the team suggested your idea. Not sure if it is getting green light or not to be honest though. It is not a bad idea though.

Quote :

I enjoy the crafting aspect of the game, and it is certainly costly in terms of gold, but higher level fragments are hard to come by as well. It also would allow those broken items some reuse other than paperweights.

We are working on a mechanism through which you can claim some sort of a bounty by cashing in the Conquest Points you have gathered in a region. The more you have, the bigger the probability for better stuff awarded to you and the most valuable one might even give Gems. More on that later on.

Slightly off topic, but still in the crafting category...

When you create an item. Lets say for example a Godlike banner for a light infantry unit.
Does it matter at all what you level of research is as far as to the item's stats? e.g. I start the game with 3 godlike banner fragments and I decide to save up gold and make a banner. What, if anything, is different from someone who has maxed out research in runecrafting and does the same? (except of course for the time it takes and the cost involved)

Any idea when the merchant feature will be added to the crafting buildings?

(I have a lot of items I would like to sell, so I can make more)

Can we get some clarification on item maximum durability loss in terms of why it even exists and this rumored "reforge" option to come.

soviet wrote:

Can we get some clarification on item maximum durability loss in terms of why it even exists and this rumored "reforge" option to come.

Here is what we are planning to do about items and their durability.

Currently, items have a Durability value which differs depending on the rarity of the item.

When it reaches 0 the item breaks and cannot be used any longer.

Due to popular demand, we have decided to add a Reforge option which will allow the users to reforge the item with a durability of 55/55 for a Godlike item for example. This reforging will only be available when the item breaks i.e. when the item reaches 0/0 durability.

We are not certain about the reforging cost formula yet, but it will involve gold and fragments.

Very quick reply, nice!

just have an issue with 2 points that i think the majority of the community will agree on

RuneSlayer wrote:

...when the item breaks i.e. when the item reaches 0/0 durability....

repairing a heroes item of max durability 6 will cause it to have a max durability of 4, this repair took 40 min. On average this will take some around 4 hrs of agonizing repairs with extremely limited uses before it can be reforged, personally it will take me well over a week to make it go down from 10 to 0 not because of usage but because once i put it on a 40 min repair i will not use it again on that day opting for a backup item instead.

RuneSlayer wrote:

...We are not certain about the reforging cost formula yet, but it will involve gold and fragments.

hopefully not purple/red fragments, i don't see anyone naturally acquiring enough of either tier fragments to fully gear a field army under a year as is. based on that assumption i don't think that creating a sink for either of the 2 tiers of fragments is justifiable. perhaps while the game is young skip the negative aspect of the fragments lost to equipment maintenance all together just for the sake of not alienating the player-base?

personally i found the game to be a lot more fun in the past 3 days of actually using my best items as its an undeniable fact that people are holding back on their top gear right now for the fear of loosing their ace

Reforging is an interesting solution, and Im happy you guys are trying to fix this. It is a mess.

It is prohibitively expensive in both time and gold. Shards are nearly worthless, and they provide temporary bonuses that cripple a persons resources once you get into the repair loops (for very little bonus, in most cases)

Here is the main reason to scrap durability, however. People like to play these sorts of games because they like to build up in power, and they like the thrill of finding and making rare items. You make them temporary, and you remove that carrot that keeps us little donkeys playing a game.

I have played MMOs from day 1 of Everquest's release. Building up in power is THE carrot that keeps players motivated. Games like DAOC or others that had durability on items that you eventually lost simply did not have the same level of interest for players. Those games died for that main reason.

Dont have durability on your items in a game. Just dont do it. If you do, do it as a money sink. If you do that, Never, EVER have the max durability drop. It makes the players not care about their items, which in turn makes them not care about playing your game.

Always an unpopular choice with players, durability and max decreasing durability remains a popular resource sink tool in gaming for some odd reason for developers. It has sank more games than bad publishing deals,

Personally, if I owned a game development company, the durability question would be included in the interview process for designers and programmers. Anyone suggesting it later would immediately be canned, and left to go poison other titles. It cannot be stressed enough how it affects player reaction to a game.

Ugbash wrote:

Reforging is an interesting solution, and Im happy you guys are trying to fix this. It is a mess.

It is prohibitively expensive in both time and gold. Shards are nearly worthless, and they provide temporary bonuses that cripple a persons resources once you get into the repair loops (for very little bonus, in most cases)

Here is the main reason to scrap durability, however. People like to play these sorts of games because they like to build up in power, and they like the thrill of finding and making rare items. You make them temporary, and you remove that carrot that keeps us little donkeys playing a game.

I have played MMOs from day 1 of Everquest's release. Building up in power is THE carrot that keeps players motivated. Games like DAOC or others that had durability on items that you eventually lost simply did not have the same level of interest for players. Those games died for that main reason.

Dont have durability on your items in a game. Just dont do it. If you do, do it as a money sink. If you do that, Never, EVER have the max durability drop. It makes the players not care about their items, which in turn makes them not care about playing your game.

Always an unpopular choice with players, durability and max decreasing durability remains a popular resource sink tool in gaming for some odd reason for developers. It has sank more games than bad publishing deals,

Personally, if I owned a game development company, the durability question would be included in the interview process for designers and programmers. Anyone suggesting it later would immediately be canned, and left to go poison other titles. It cannot be stressed enough how it affects player reaction to a game.

Great posts from all of you.

Tbh here, our main goal is not to creat an arcade MMO, but a real time tactical battle simulation where EVERYTHING will play their part in achieving a victory. We do not want to have just players with powerful items who dominate the battlefield and very soon you will see some more tactical additions which we will add.

However, we can understand the max durability concern and we will definitely address it as an important issue, since the majority of the players consider it as FAIL. Hey, after all, this is your game...

Ugbash wrote:

Reforging is an interesting solution, and Im happy you guys are trying to fix this. It is a mess.

It is prohibitively expensive in both time and gold. Shards are nearly worthless, and they provide temporary bonuses that cripple a persons resources once you get into the repair loops (for very little bonus, in most cases)

Here is the main reason to scrap durability, however. People like to play these sorts of games because they like to build up in power, and they like the thrill of finding and making rare items. You make them temporary, and you remove that carrot that keeps us little donkeys playing a game.

I have played MMOs from day 1 of Everquest's release. Building up in power is THE carrot that keeps players motivated. Games like DAOC or others that had durability on items that you eventually lost simply did not have the same level of interest for players. Those games died for that main reason.

Dont have durability on your items in a game. Just dont do it. If you do, do it as a money sink. If you do that, Never, EVER have the max durability drop. It makes the players not care about their items, which in turn makes them not care about playing your game.

Always an unpopular choice with players, durability and max decreasing durability remains a popular resource sink tool in gaming for some odd reason for developers. It has sank more games than bad publishing deals,

Personally, if I owned a game development company, the durability question would be included in the interview process for designers and programmers. Anyone suggesting it later would immediately be canned, and left to go poison other titles. It cannot be stressed enough how it affects player reaction to a game.

I have to disagree. What you are talking about is a very loot-driven, Skinner-box approach to games. Extra Credit's Video - youtu.be/tWtvrPTbQ_c (Cant post a proper link yet)

Skinner-box games like that require that you constantly offer higher and higher loot to maintain the game's appeal to the player. Otherwise as soon as you get all the BIS items, as you mentioned, you have no desire to keep playing. WoW and most MMOs did exactly that. Sure, most players felt like their items were "permanent" but in actuality, every 3 months, their "permanent" BIS item was obsoleted.

Instead of constantly trying to build new powerful items to satisfy the constant power creep of an MMO-style game, I would prefer to see the devs focus on new combat mechanics / tactics, new units, new abilities, new map strategies, good guild/group mechanics.

For a game like BattleCon, tactical / strategic co op and pvp play are what I see as the "Endgame" that keeps players going. Items and Loot shouldnt be a hassle to maintain, but they shouldnt be the drive to play the game either.

Hegorn wrote:

Ugbash wrote:

Reforging is an interesting solution, and Im happy you guys are trying to fix this. It is a mess.

It is prohibitively expensive in both time and gold. Shards are nearly worthless, and they provide temporary bonuses that cripple a persons resources once you get into the repair loops (for very little bonus, in most cases)

Here is the main reason to scrap durability, however. People like to play these sorts of games because they like to build up in power, and they like the thrill of finding and making rare items. You make them temporary, and you remove that carrot that keeps us little donkeys playing a game.

I have played MMOs from day 1 of Everquest's release. Building up in power is THE carrot that keeps players motivated. Games like DAOC or others that had durability on items that you eventually lost simply did not have the same level of interest for players. Those games died for that main reason.

Dont have durability on your items in a game. Just dont do it. If you do, do it as a money sink. If you do that, Never, EVER have the max durability drop. It makes the players not care about their items, which in turn makes them not care about playing your game.

Always an unpopular choice with players, durability and max decreasing durability remains a popular resource sink tool in gaming for some odd reason for developers. It has sank more games than bad publishing deals,

Personally, if I owned a game development company, the durability question would be included in the interview process for designers and programmers. Anyone suggesting it later would immediately be canned, and left to go poison other titles. It cannot be stressed enough how it affects player reaction to a game.

I have to disagree. What you are talking about is a very loot-driven, Skinner-box approach to games. Extra Credit's Video - youtu.be/tWtvrPTbQ_c (Cant post a proper link yet)

Skinner-box games like that require that you constantly offer higher and higher loot to maintain the game's appeal to the player. Otherwise as soon as you get all the BIS items, as you mentioned, you have no desire to keep playing. WoW and most MMOs did exactly that. Sure, most players felt like their items were "permanent" but in actuality, every 3 months, their "permanent" BIS item was obsoleted.

Instead of constantly trying to build new powerful items to satisfy the constant power creep of an MMO-style game, I would prefer to see the devs focus on new combat mechanics / tactics, new units, new abilities, new map strategies, good guild/group mechanics.

For a game like BattleCon, tactical / strategic co op and pvp play are what I see as the "Endgame" that keeps players going. Items and Loot shouldnt be a hassle to maintain, but they shouldnt be the drive to play the game either.

That is exactly where our game is heading. We focus on tactics, social interaction, strategy and of course content. Good post.

Hegorn wrote:

Ugbash wrote:

Reforging is an interesting solution, and Im happy you guys are trying to fix this. It is a mess.

It is prohibitively expensive in both time and gold. Shards are nearly worthless, and they provide temporary bonuses that cripple a persons resources once you get into the repair loops (for very little bonus, in most cases)

Here is the main reason to scrap durability, however. People like to play these sorts of games because they like to build up in power, and they like the thrill of finding and making rare items. You make them temporary, and you remove that carrot that keeps us little donkeys playing a game.

I have played MMOs from day 1 of Everquest's release. Building up in power is THE carrot that keeps players motivated. Games like DAOC or others that had durability on items that you eventually lost simply did not have the same level of interest for players. Those games died for that main reason.

Dont have durability on your items in a game. Just dont do it. If you do, do it as a money sink. If you do that, Never, EVER have the max durability drop. It makes the players not care about their items, which in turn makes them not care about playing your game.

Always an unpopular choice with players, durability and max decreasing durability remains a popular resource sink tool in gaming for some odd reason for developers. It has sank more games than bad publishing deals,

Personally, if I owned a game development company, the durability question would be included in the interview process for designers and programmers. Anyone suggesting it later would immediately be canned, and left to go poison other titles. It cannot be stressed enough how it affects player reaction to a game.

I have to disagree. What you are talking about is a very loot-driven, Skinner-box approach to games. Extra Credit's Video - youtu.be/tWtvrPTbQ_c (Cant post a proper link yet)

Skinner-box games like that require that you constantly offer higher and higher loot to maintain the game's appeal to the player. Otherwise as soon as you get all the BIS items, as you mentioned, you have no desire to keep playing. WoW and most MMOs did exactly that. Sure, most players felt like their items were "permanent" but in actuality, every 3 months, their "permanent" BIS item was obsoleted.

Instead of constantly trying to build new powerful items to satisfy the constant power creep of an MMO-style game, I would prefer to see the devs focus on new combat mechanics / tactics, new units, new abilities, new map strategies, good guild/group mechanics.

For a game like BattleCon, tactical / strategic co op and pvp play are what I see as the "Endgame" that keeps players going. Items and Loot shouldnt be a hassle to maintain, but they shouldnt be the drive to play the game either.

Well. 3 months before power creep makes an item worthless is one thing. Losing rare items to durability loss in 2 DAYS is another. If you cant see the difference between spending time and game resources on something that is worth keeping for weeks or even months of gaming versus throw away junk that will be replaced in less than half a week then maybe you should go to work for one of these guys, and help sink their game.

This game will remain small scale with this mechanic. Every single game that has ever implemented drop items that wear out (none even did half this quickly) sank for (mainly) that eason. Players simply wont work and send on items that they cant keep.

Oh, and as another point, the games (you say you dont like) that have more permanent items are the bar by which modern successful games are measured. WoW, EQ, and others were wildly successful because people gave them money, month after month for ITEMS. Not levels, skills, or anything else. Items are the carrot in front of the donkey. This goes doubly for flash games that garner revenue through means other than recurring subscription fees.

Ask yourself this question. Will people pay more in-game currency for resources (or boosts) or for epic level items? If you cant answer that simple question, look around at other games. The difference in money that can make for your company is staggering.

Ugbash wrote:

Well. 3 months before power creep makes an item worthless is one thing. Losing rare items to durability loss in 2 DAYS is another.

I agree completely that the numbers need work. Longevity of items feels very short right now compared to repair times - especially as the durability drops. This ratio of time is the problem and it seems like the devs get that.

Ugbash wrote:

...other stuff...

I was disagreeing with the point that your post was pushing -- "permanent items or fail."

There are plenty of ways to balance the income of items vs their deprecation/loss. As long as this feels right, the concept of non-permanent items can be as successful as perma items - especially in a game that is not a pure RPG.

I'm not against the idea of reforging for essentially permanent items. I do think that the endgame economy does need to be based on some type of consumable/deprecating items. Perhaps guild warfare will utilize that more.

Even all the MMO games that you mention did this. For WoW, it was flasks for raids. Even Gems which were "permanent" were used to fill gaps in your stats to reach caps. Whenever you got new gear, you often had to replace several gems in your other gear to refill the new stats. That gap filling was a huge part of the endgame economy. BattleCon has stat caps as well btw...

This is also why I've pushed a bit for more precise information on stats, formulas, and caps. That metagame is what will keep the competitive players intrigued with discovering new combinations of gear to try with new tactics on the battlefield.

Ugbash wrote:

...monetization stuff...

I dont know what Agincourt's long term monetization strategy is with this game.

I hope they dont want to turn it into a money-grabbing p2w flash game. Anyone who has been following the F2P market knows that those games are a dime a dozen. They have low ARPUs and high ARPPUs. They turn into the equivalent of gamer viagra, and tax people who dont understand the psychology of gaming.

Good F2P games are all about rewarding these 3 things in a balanced way: Player skill, Player time, and Player money. As long as the endgame's top content includes a good balance of these three things, the devs will have plenty of players who stick around and support them financially.

Hegorn wrote:

Good F2P games are all about rewarding these 3 things in a balanced way: Player skill, Player time, and Player money. As long as the endgame's top content includes a good balance of these three things, the devs will have plenty of players who stick around and support them financially.

I agree wholeheartedly here,that is probably the most intelligent statement I have read on the state of F2P game economics. I just wanted to point out that asking for money to be spent only on resource boosts will ensure that no in-game currency gets bought. At least by me. Resource boosts dont help you on the battlefield one iota, they simply speed up the progress of your economy.

To become profitable, the devs must come up with something the players want. If it is non-permanent, make it something cool, like special units that can be summoned for tough battles but disappear afterward.