Durability

[Roken 21]

After a discussion with a fellow Wurmian in which we were talking about equipment, I thought about a new feature (which many of you won't like, I'm more than sure, but what the hell) called "durability". What's that about? Here it goes:

 

The current situation is "Once you've got a tool, you'll keep forever" (unless you die and lose it) and it's because you can keep going repair > improve forever and ever and ever. "It's good!" you'll say, "Taking care of your items rewards you!" you'll say... and I agree. To a certain degree. While it's good to being able to ensure that your tools or arms will serve you well for long time, it's rather bad if that "long time" becomes "forever", because there's not much of rotation of equipment. Durability system should put more life into crafting tools/arms for trade.

 

The system itself would introduce a new parameter (called "durability", obviously) to all the repairable items, save for buildings. Durability would be a total "hp" of the item, reduced at 1:1 ratio* for the damage repaired. When the durability reaches 0, the item can't be repaired anymore. The message given could be: "The <item> is too worn out to be repaired.".

 

* Ratio could be reduced by repairing skill. For example at 100 (or close) repairing each 1 damage repaired would drain 0.75 of durability, instead of full 1.

 

The Durability points would be based on item quality, item material and item rarity. Note that the numbers stated below serve as refrence only and not the actual numbers that should be in game.

- Iron: 2*ql = max durability.

- Steel: 3*ql = max durability (note that steel damages less as well, so the effective lifespan would be even longer).

- Rare/Supreme/Fantastic: +50%/+100%/+200% max durability.

(If it ever gets live, a spreadsheet for all the metals and wood should be made).

 

There is, of course, a difference between max durability and effective durability. Max durability can be gained throught improving, even if the item was previously damaged and repaired, but gaining more max durability doesn't restore the durability lost due to repairing. For a simple example:

 

- An iron longsword of ql 50 and no rarity would have 100 max durability. Write it down as 100/100.

- The weapon gets damaged for 25 damage and its repaired by an unskilled craftsman.

- As a result of the above, the sword has now 40ql, 0 damage and 75/100 durability.

- More skilled craftsman takes care of the sword and improves it to 80ql.

- The weapon now has 135/160 durability.

(Yes, I skipped the damage gained through imping fails. Let's say it'd have more like <130 effective durability, depending on how skilled the crafter was).

 

Two things can be seen above:

- Going below the max ql the item ever achieved doesn't lower its durability. If it ever had 200 max durability, it will keep it even if it goes to 1 ql.

- Improving an item that has its durability partially drained, wouldn't restore the durability. It will only increase its total amount. If it had 50/100 durability, gaining 100 max durability via improving will result in 150/200 durability.

 

 

This system would introduce more dynamic to crafting and trade, especially in arms department and would give medium-skilled craftsmen more sources of income when people would prefer to use a mediocre weapon/tool to save their top-tier one to serve a better purpose.

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTES:

- Neither "Mend" nor "Sunder" spells would affect durability. Durability is meant to be HARD item lifespan cap without the room for workaround.

- Good practice for (metal) items that had lost their durability and are close to 100 damage would be smelting them, just to get some materials back for a new tool.

 

 

And once again, just to be sure: Numbers above ARE NOT "THE" NUMBERS. If it seems like tools would be gone too quickly, don't downvote. The numbers would most likely be higher if it gets ingame.

 

 

Sidenote: This system would neatly come along with: http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/117502-new-magranon-spell/

Edited January 24, 2015 by Roken

[ShadowRonin 407]

This is an awful idea.  Why do I have to continue to add more iron, wood, leather to improve an item if it suddenly vanishes into dust?  Not to mention people have hundreds or thousands of euros worth of equipment they would gradually lose.  Something like this would drive off a large portion of any veteran players.

[Kagrenac 812]

This would turn out really badly.

 

Items taking damage already makes items have a "durability", just because it is the same item that needs to be improved to whatever quality vs a new one won't do anything to "increase trade"(and really, changing game mechanics to fit wurms economy is not a good idea)

 

All it would do is force people to do more work to have the same items+spam mend instead of repairing things, as well as get rid of any rare/unique items.

[Maxthx 642]

One of the things I enjoy most about Wurm is getting attached to my tools and equipment... If you give them an expiration date its (to me) destroying one of the foundations of what I enjoy about the game.

 

Just my opinion.

[Wurmhole 3,650]

I voted no.  A lot of thought went into this idea and I like some of the thinking here, but ultimately for me, I truly enjoy being able to keep repairing and improving the same tools.  I think spell decay is really the most important decay rate anyway.  After all, what is the difference between me wearing my 90ql pick down to 10, then imping it back up to 90, vs throwing it away, making a new pick and imping it to 90?

[madnezz 555]

-1, bad suggestion is just bad, play more and think about suggestions less

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

-1

[Jukimo 234]

-1

 

if this were to be put in moonmetal/drake/scale would become a rare thing, because it would all get poofed on use.

[wipeout 1,355]

-1 it make armor and weapons pretty much rare even normal ones

 

"oh joy i made this ql 90 sword and got it enchanted with all these things" 4 hours of fighting later "well guess il go back to making an other sword" >.> sure its a bit extreme but still just no once you get to fast action timers and you watch your ql 95 pick drop down to <70 in a matter of 2-3 days you will know that adding durability ontop of that would make the pick be useless at 90

[MrGARY 12,421]

noooooooooooooo

[Firecat 865]

-1 pls no      

 

Way too dumb to be implemented

Edited January 24, 2015 by Firecat

[Becket 843]

oh hell no

[Kediec 280]

No from me.

[sunsvortex 599]

Adding a sink to the back end of the item lifecycle will never, be even close to acceptable, unless it has some grandiose level of playability, such as a pvp tie in IE naval warfare, boats are sunk, with perhaps loosing the cargo they contain as they go down.

 

I would agree with the OP another control / sink is needed, I just wouldnt put it in the position of the lifecycle they suggest.

Edited January 24, 2015 by sunsvortex

[Miniroll 544]

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[Sizzle 184]

-1

 

But hey don't feel bad, I've made worse suggestions than that and the devs ninja shieldbash tweak was even worse 

Edited January 24, 2015 by Sizzle

[Roken 21]

-1

 

But hey don't feel bad, I've made worse suggestions than that and the devs ninja shieldbash tweak was even worse 

 

I'm not feeling bad at all Suggestion forum is for making suggestions and getting a feedback. I was convinced it would get a huge "nope", but what the hell - it's not like we're losing anything writing here

 

 

-1, bad suggestion is just bad, play more and think about suggestions less

 

And here's a nope from me in return. I'll play, yes, but you can certainly expect some more suggestions from me. More or less dumb

 

 

Anyway thanks you all for a feedback I guess this thread's ready to be archivised.

[Ayes 3,715]

No! Why? Who would this benefit? Oh yea, those who create and enchant these tools, since after a period of time those who purchased them would need to purchase them again. Yea, I see but No.

 

=Ayes=

[Tekari 133]

From my blacksmith/enchanter perspective I'd say it's worth a thought.

But since it is so hard and/or expensive to get a good set of tools (even more if they should be rares) I have to say no.

 

Plus we all know Rolf... We'd loose all our tools in a week if he'd implement that.

And after an awful lot of ranting on the forums by the players he'd change it again and give us five hours of SB to say sry

 

So -1...

[Tipper 260]

Only if you're willing to personally exchange my tears for silver.

 

Props for a detailed op, but no thanks.

[Hula_Girl 266]

And toons dying from old age. All 30+ should be dead by now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time