The biggest problem I had with FF and what drove me away was the durability. The difference of the days before that patch and after were like night and day. You went from a fun loving go get em attitude to all business all the time cuz my gear will break and I can't waist durability on anything but the most important things. Like grinding for mats to make more gear.
First of all, there is no optional power boosts, that significantly increase damage output. Example:
There is big boss for 20 players. If all of them use +50% damage boost, boss is very easy to kill. Game creators must decide what to do - if they increase boss hp, it will be too hard for normal players, if not, it will be too easy for power players. In 99% of cases, they are increasing hp, so players are forced to buy boosts.
I think that a very good idea is to sell cheap and small consumable boosts (run speed, vehicle speed, jump height, +3-5% hp, etc.) with auto-buy option (for non-poor players). This would be great additional sink.
There are some "power creep" solutions in this thread, but all of them have the same rule - resources for power. Does it matter if it is called: consumables, gems, battery, micromodules, tinkering, decay, etc.? What is the difference between:
I don't understand why so many people say, that they had problems with resources i Firefall v0.6-0.7. I had never had a problem with resources (only for short time with AMPs). Doing ARES missions and events gave more than enough resources for unlocks and crafting. Below compilation of printscreens from 2013.
There is big boss for 20 players. If all of them use +50% damage boost, boss is very easy to kill. Game creators must decide what to do - if they increase boss hp, it will be too hard for normal players, if not, it will be too easy for power players. In 99% of cases, they are increasing hp, so players are forced to buy boosts.
I think that a very good idea is to sell cheap and small consumable boosts (run speed, vehicle speed, jump height, +3-5% hp, etc.) with auto-buy option (for non-poor players). This would be great additional sink.
There are some "power creep" solutions in this thread, but all of them have the same rule - resources for power. Does it matter if it is called: consumables, gems, battery, micromodules, tinkering, decay, etc.? What is the difference between:
- consumable: +50% shotgun damage for 12h CT(Combat Time),
- tinkering shotgun from T1 to T2: +50% shotgun damage with X durability (= 12h CT),
- battery +50% shotgun damage with limited power Y (= 12h CT),
- crafting shotgun with better barrel (+50%damage) with Z durability (= 12h CT)?
I don't understand why so many people say, that they had problems with resources i Firefall v0.6-0.7. I had never had a problem with resources (only for short time with AMPs). Doing ARES missions and events gave more than enough resources for unlocks and crafting. Below compilation of printscreens from 2013.
Yes, this is more or less accurate. If the wrong type of power boots were included into the game, they would cease to be optional.
In the most general sense of them all being a trade of resource for power, those options can indeed lead to the same general end. Balancing resource in and out is certainly key. Still that is an oversimplification of the differences between some of these options. More importantly however, it that it is imperative to understand that the psychological effect is no small thing. The psychological effect of every system in a game must be carefully considered.To put it in simple words, how a game feels to the player is the ultimate goal, the driving purpose, and the end result of every-other-thing you do to make it.
There should be no remaining lack of understanding as I have already explained the issue what caused many folks a problem, and later I also mentioned the designers intent behind why that system was created as it was. (to push/force players to change their loadout based on resource availability. which, btw, is very much the opposite of the quick-buy system you suggest.)
So yes, in 6 to 9 it was easy to get a bunch of resources, getting the right resources to make the stuff you actually wanted was quite another matter because of how everything interacted. To show screenshots of resources as rewards and suggest that proves some sort of point is an oversimplification and a disservice to true nature of the issue.
In the most general sense of them all being a trade of resource for power, those options can indeed lead to the same general end. Balancing resource in and out is certainly key. Still that is an oversimplification of the differences between some of these options. More importantly however, it that it is imperative to understand that the psychological effect is no small thing. The psychological effect of every system in a game must be carefully considered.To put it in simple words, how a game feels to the player is the ultimate goal, the driving purpose, and the end result of every-other-thing you do to make it.
There should be no remaining lack of understanding as I have already explained the issue what caused many folks a problem, and later I also mentioned the designers intent behind why that system was created as it was. (to push/force players to change their loadout based on resource availability. which, btw, is very much the opposite of the quick-buy system you suggest.)
So yes, in 6 to 9 it was easy to get a bunch of resources, getting the right resources to make the stuff you actually wanted was quite another matter because of how everything interacted. To show screenshots of resources as rewards and suggest that proves some sort of point is an oversimplification and a disservice to true nature of the issue.
Likes:
NanoTechnician and Mahdi
I don't understand why so many people say, that they had problems with resources i Firefall v0.6-0.7. I had never had a problem with resources (only for short time with AMPs). Doing ARES missions and events gave more than enough resources for unlocks and crafting. Below compilation of printscreens from 2013.
Come on man. Put the koolaid down.
It's a difficult balancing act, this is what most people miss.
Premise one: I want to make money off resources.
Premise two: i don't want my gear to break.
Premise three: i want to craft or make something and/or want people to buy it or my resources indefinitely.
There's a disconnect between these three.
Garbage in, garbage out. If everyone is cheap, no one makes money. I've read this on the forums so many times, "i don't want my gear to break but i want others to keep buying my crafted gear indefinitely." There's a disconnect between those premises, unless you come up with a compromise. Gear breakage was maybe not the best solution but it was never the less a solution to this problem.
If you got a better idea, please share it with the group. No sarcasm, no disrespect intended but it's a delicate and tricky issue. We're all open to suggestions and there are no stupid solutions only unrealistic ones.
Premise one: I want to make money off resources.
Premise two: i don't want my gear to break.
Premise three: i want to craft or make something and/or want people to buy it or my resources indefinitely.
There's a disconnect between these three.
Garbage in, garbage out. If everyone is cheap, no one makes money. I've read this on the forums so many times, "i don't want my gear to break but i want others to keep buying my crafted gear indefinitely." There's a disconnect between those premises, unless you come up with a compromise. Gear breakage was maybe not the best solution but it was never the less a solution to this problem.
If you got a better idea, please share it with the group. No sarcasm, no disrespect intended but it's a delicate and tricky issue. We're all open to suggestions and there are no stupid solutions only unrealistic ones.
Likes:
Fabricio21RJ
That's not what I recall reading from people for the most part.
Most commonly, the people who didn't want their gear to break were not looking for other people to buy their gear indefinitely. While the people who wanted to keep selling their gear indefinitely, were more open to gear breaking. The true disconnect was in the type of player speaking at the time. The "average shooter game player" and the "combat focused mmorpg player "weren't really worried about the economy in and out, they just wanted to know that it wouldn't get in their way. The "sandbox game player" and the more "economically minded MMORPG player" were often interested in the churn of the economy, so they were ok with having to think about it and make decisions regarding it as they played.
One of the big reasons for the schism in firefall's community was that you had people who came to the game expecting very different types of experience. For a time red 5 had the idea that they could please both of those extremes. Is it possible? Maybe. But to my knowledge no game has ever achieved it to date.
The better idea, if there is such a thing, is to start by accepting that one game will not please all preferences.
To not expect the "super crafters" and the "pure shooters" to somehow love the same game.
So then you decide which side of the coin is the "focus", and which side is the "supplement".
There is always some overlap between player bases, but a dev has to choose a main audience.
Most commonly, the people who didn't want their gear to break were not looking for other people to buy their gear indefinitely. While the people who wanted to keep selling their gear indefinitely, were more open to gear breaking. The true disconnect was in the type of player speaking at the time. The "average shooter game player" and the "combat focused mmorpg player "weren't really worried about the economy in and out, they just wanted to know that it wouldn't get in their way. The "sandbox game player" and the more "economically minded MMORPG player" were often interested in the churn of the economy, so they were ok with having to think about it and make decisions regarding it as they played.
One of the big reasons for the schism in firefall's community was that you had people who came to the game expecting very different types of experience. For a time red 5 had the idea that they could please both of those extremes. Is it possible? Maybe. But to my knowledge no game has ever achieved it to date.
The better idea, if there is such a thing, is to start by accepting that one game will not please all preferences.
To not expect the "super crafters" and the "pure shooters" to somehow love the same game.
So then you decide which side of the coin is the "focus", and which side is the "supplement".
There is always some overlap between player bases, but a dev has to choose a main audience.
To me that's not the way i see it. I was not an MMORPG player. The reason i didn't care about decay was because i didn't care. My stats were not important to me other than my cooldowns. The way i see it it was that the MMO players cared that they lost their gear. I didn't care because i fell more in the shooter camp.
If my gear broke, by the time i had to replace it i had enough resources to do so. Maybe they weren't perfect but they did the job.
I didn't care about all purples. That's something usually MMO players do. Blues were good enough for me, i honestly barely noticed the difference. They were a status symbol to me. Too expensive for what they were worth. This included after 1.0.
Blues were overall good enough for action based player and they were cheap. Crafting smart, another benefit of the constraint system. If i'm allowed to be so blunt, the reason it got changed was not for the shooter players but for the MMO players.
If my gear broke, by the time i had to replace it i had enough resources to do so. Maybe they weren't perfect but they did the job.
I didn't care about all purples. That's something usually MMO players do. Blues were good enough for me, i honestly barely noticed the difference. They were a status symbol to me. Too expensive for what they were worth. This included after 1.0.
Blues were overall good enough for action based player and they were cheap. Crafting smart, another benefit of the constraint system. If i'm allowed to be so blunt, the reason it got changed was not for the shooter players but for the MMO players.
Last edited:
Likes:
Fabricio21RJ
Aint that the truth. I know all about the balancing act. I'm an accountant for fraks sake.
I don't have any problems with gear breaking and even item decay. I play plenty of games with it. Resources in and out. Sure.
Firefall's version of it was straight up bad though. They built the economy as if they were purposely trying to break it.
I don't have any problems with gear breaking and even item decay. I play plenty of games with it. Resources in and out. Sure.
Firefall's version of it was straight up bad though. They built the economy as if they were purposely trying to break it.
Keep in mind when we talk about "most commonly", there will always be those who fall outside of that.
Myself for example. I don't need progression systems to put a hundred+ hours into a PVE game as long as the combat is fun. I'm not typical in that regard.
Thing is, if making a shooter game, would you normally put a mechanics that required the player to spend a bunch of time not shooting, scrolling through menu's, crunching numbers, or having to change the nature of their loadout (read: playstyle) because of resource availability? usually that stuff is held back to the supplemental layer, where it acts as an appreciated pallet cleanser and aspect of depth. It is not usually up in the forefront where it creates a lot of mental energy devoted to it. That is because most of the time that will turn tons of shooter players off.
Edit:
Another thing for the avergae a shooter player, they may not be attached to their gear like the average mmo player. But that doesn't mean they want to spend a bunch of time tooling around with the crafter or market menu just to gear up.
Myself for example. I don't need progression systems to put a hundred+ hours into a PVE game as long as the combat is fun. I'm not typical in that regard.
Thing is, if making a shooter game, would you normally put a mechanics that required the player to spend a bunch of time not shooting, scrolling through menu's, crunching numbers, or having to change the nature of their loadout (read: playstyle) because of resource availability? usually that stuff is held back to the supplemental layer, where it acts as an appreciated pallet cleanser and aspect of depth. It is not usually up in the forefront where it creates a lot of mental energy devoted to it. That is because most of the time that will turn tons of shooter players off.
Edit:
Another thing for the avergae a shooter player, they may not be attached to their gear like the average mmo player. But that doesn't mean they want to spend a bunch of time tooling around with the crafter or market menu just to gear up.
Keep in mind when we talk about "most commonly", there will always be those who fall outside of that.
Myself for example. I don't need progression systems to put a hundred hours into a game. I'm not typical in that regard.
Thing is, if making a shooter game, would you normally put a mechanics that required the player to spend a bunch of time not shooting, scrolling through menu's, crunching numbers, or having to change the nature of their loadout (read
laystle) because of resource availability? usually that stuff is held back to the supplemental layer, where it acts as an appreciated pallet cleanser and aspect of depth. It is not usually up in the forefront where it creates a lot of mental energy devoted to it. That is because most of the time that will turn tons of shooter players off.
Myself for example. I don't need progression systems to put a hundred hours into a game. I'm not typical in that regard.
Thing is, if making a shooter game, would you normally put a mechanics that required the player to spend a bunch of time not shooting, scrolling through menu's, crunching numbers, or having to change the nature of their loadout (read
laystle) because of resource availability? usually that stuff is held back to the supplemental layer, where it acts as an appreciated pallet cleanser and aspect of depth. It is not usually up in the forefront where it creates a lot of mental energy devoted to it. That is because most of the time that will turn tons of shooter players off.
Plus downtime creates a natural social environment. Think of player towers.
You want your players to do trivial tasks in a perpetual game. The monotony of the "zen" gardening in contrast with the overwhelming action is a good thing not a bad thing.
Look at it as chocolate. Eat it all the time, it gets disgusting. Eat it just the right amount of time and it's the best thing ever.
Yes of course. Exactly like I said, supplemental vs forefront. Knowing when, what, where and how to place the peaks and valleys is important. And it's based largely on the audience you are trying to please. That's what pacing deals with. Also, putting effort into doing some set of features you don't even enjoy for a prolonged period of time doesn't count as "downtime". What is enjoyed, like everything else, comes down to the audience you are trying to please.
Likes:
Fabricio21RJ and Sn0wfIak3
Not sure if I see the proper moment to jump in here because I am not addressing some of the major concerns to the majority topics on this thread. I think I am going to address balance of rewards based on a player's choice of game style.
Those who love to thump (me and my friends from FF) we would have more resources than other people for crafting and base building. But if we are to invest heavily, and far more than other players, we should be rewarded with perks, discounts and maybe taxation of expenditures in that base/refinery.
Those who are cheap and greedy. Not judging, being real about it. Through all various means of getting equipment to salvage, from drops and missions. Also through means of crafting and disassembling. Then also their own thumping time. This is more of your jack of all trades player. Not overly committed to something but gaining from all fronts. They would be the ones with more access to additional vehicles over others. There is actually a good bit of a road to go down on this one for benefits.
Your shooter/action player. Set a goal to equal the time needed for the 'grind' of thumping but in the ways of mission and world expansion/conquest. Not the brains of a dev here so leave that to the people who are smarter than me to set values to this. But these players will have more drops than others along with higher quality mission rewards and with these they can be balanced in gear strength but have more unique performances that they alone would get.
These things can be rotated easily week to week so everyone can get a taste of what suits them and the full game's experience. A system of this nature I believe could alleviate much of the distress to the current issues and arguments on this thread. Balancing the reward time table I think would be the toughest part of the development, but meting out rewards evenly for anyone's choice play style would do wonders for the psychological reception of Em-8ER.
Those who love to thump (me and my friends from FF) we would have more resources than other people for crafting and base building. But if we are to invest heavily, and far more than other players, we should be rewarded with perks, discounts and maybe taxation of expenditures in that base/refinery.
Those who are cheap and greedy. Not judging, being real about it. Through all various means of getting equipment to salvage, from drops and missions. Also through means of crafting and disassembling. Then also their own thumping time. This is more of your jack of all trades player. Not overly committed to something but gaining from all fronts. They would be the ones with more access to additional vehicles over others. There is actually a good bit of a road to go down on this one for benefits.
Your shooter/action player. Set a goal to equal the time needed for the 'grind' of thumping but in the ways of mission and world expansion/conquest. Not the brains of a dev here so leave that to the people who are smarter than me to set values to this. But these players will have more drops than others along with higher quality mission rewards and with these they can be balanced in gear strength but have more unique performances that they alone would get.
These things can be rotated easily week to week so everyone can get a taste of what suits them and the full game's experience. A system of this nature I believe could alleviate much of the distress to the current issues and arguments on this thread. Balancing the reward time table I think would be the toughest part of the development, but meting out rewards evenly for anyone's choice play style would do wonders for the psychological reception of Em-8ER.
That's kinda what they tried to do with resources and what was what you got from doing ares missions, right?. The only donwside was that resource consumption was infinite. The rewards we got "ares something" i don't remeber the name, were only used for leveling.
If all activities gave rewards that were infinite in use. That would have fixed the problem imo. It was a mayor complaint going to 0.8.
I believe this was already part of them fading out decay. If rewards for ares misssions were some type of currency that never lost their value and were equal in value to resources. No one would have complained. I agree this would be the best system. This again brings us back however to an economy that craves those resources and currency indefinitely.
Do whatever you want and still get rewarded for it equally. Harder content grants greater rewards however weaker or less skilled players or less skilled in a particular field won't feel left out.
GAMING SOCIALISM!!!!
If all activities gave rewards that were infinite in use. That would have fixed the problem imo. It was a mayor complaint going to 0.8.
I believe this was already part of them fading out decay. If rewards for ares misssions were some type of currency that never lost their value and were equal in value to resources. No one would have complained. I agree this would be the best system. This again brings us back however to an economy that craves those resources and currency indefinitely.
Do whatever you want and still get rewarded for it equally. Harder content grants greater rewards however weaker or less skilled players or less skilled in a particular field won't feel left out.
GAMING SOCIALISM!!!!
Last edited:
Remember that one mission in Final Fantasy 8 where your team storms the beach and .... ends up clearing the entire front line? Well the immediate next scene has you pacing around the town square with nothing to do but wait and talk, it was a good break from FF's primitive combat system though. So it made the next few battles less tedious I think
EDIT: ...yeah it really does take place after a back-to-back series of constant battles:
There's an article on TVtropes called Acceptable Breaks from Reality that goes over this kind of split in mechanics
EDIT: ...yeah it really does take place after a back-to-back series of constant battles:
There's an article on TVtropes called Acceptable Breaks from Reality that goes over this kind of split in mechanics
Last edited:
Many people said (not only on this forum) that after loosing their gear, they could afford only much weaker one. These screenshots prove, that player could have got much more than enough to replace gear. Period. I didn't say, that it was easy to create exactly the same set of gear, but that it was easy to create set with similar power.
It is possible for "shooter/combat game players" who has some patience (few weeks to level up, choose gear and earn some currency). Imagine Firefall v0.7 with some changes:
So, it is possible, but hard to do, because it needs creating whole game to match this system. On the other hand, it doesn't need much resources (money and manpower) and it is the easiest way to create revolutionary MMO ("No more WoW clones, only Em-8ER clones!").
It is possible for "shooter/combat game players" who has some patience (few weeks to level up, choose gear and earn some currency). Imagine Firefall v0.7 with some changes:
- there are 1000 raw resources qualities, but only 10 (R1 - R10) refined resources qualities (ex. 1000 raw Q875 = 1000 refined R8 + 1000 * 0.75 refined R9),
- players don't craft weapons, abilities, etc. but its parts (ex. barrels, clip, etc.) called modules, which have tier equal to resource its made (T5 module from R5 resources),
- modules can be exchanged freely as other equipment and each module has its own durability,
- each module can be used in 3 items (ex. plasma cannon, hpmg and bio rifle use the same barrel, but different clip),
- good auto-replace/auto-buy and market systems,
- events give much more CY than resources.
So, it is possible, but hard to do, because it needs creating whole game to match this system. On the other hand, it doesn't need much resources (money and manpower) and it is the easiest way to create revolutionary MMO ("No more WoW clones, only Em-8ER clones!").
To be fair, all screenshots of someones personal gameplay experiences can prove, is what happened in their personal gameplay experience. One thing that remains true in any economy like that is that the cost to gain ratio will not be the same for all people involved. So we have to factor in that what one person can do, does not reflect what all people can do. Hence, why some folks would have a certain gain to loss problem that others do not.
Then factor in that when many players looked to replenish their gear, they may have only looked at stuff similar to what they liked to use. They may not even have been aware that they could have made gear of similar power had they simply looked at different types of loadouts. Which then leads us to the whole part about players wanting a system that lets them earn what they wanted, as opposed to earning what happens to be available at the time.
I do not mean to be callous about it, there just isn't any way to get around that it was built in a way that didn't please a lot of people. We can pull out specific situations, we can argue that had a certain players simply done X, or simply accepted Y, then maybe they would have had a different experience. But, at the end of it all, the system was built to function a certain way that required a certain set of preferences to enjoy it. I understand why some folks liked it, I understand why some folks didn't like it. It is primarily a matter of preference in how an economic model works.
Before I can explore that possibility, I have to re-frame that question a bit.
I'm not sure that you meant to imply it but it is not fair to equate preference with patience in the context of this conversation.
That said, you are in luck, the above mentioned features tend to be well received. If the many successful shooter games that have incorporated RPG elements and/or progression systems are any indication, tons of shooter players are more than fine with choosing gear and earning currency. Firefall had those things long before the 6.0 patch, and there was no controversy surrounding them. It is clear that those weren't the mechanics that became a big point of contention among the community, it was a particular economic model. So then, if you're suggesting that you can make a full on crafter heaven economic model that only requires the actioner heaven player to do those basic things, then you may be on to something.
The proposal could use some refinements but I see where you're going with it. Something along those lines should function in a game just fine hypothetically. What leaves me uncertain is whether it would offer enough of the min/maxing and stat tweaking that the more extreme crafter fans crave. That is hard to say. Moreover, there is a niche of people who like a market that has true shifting availability. Such a mechanic, if done to a relevant degree, is just plain contrary to a quick-replace system. As one direction requires that sometimes certain things just aren't anywhere, while the other direction requires that everything is always somewhere. It is why I remain unconvinced that a true crafter heaven economy can exist alongside a true actioner heaven system. I do love trying to figure that out for fun though!
If by revolutionary you mean the first game to achieve both crafter heaven and actioner heaven simultaneously, maybe. But there is still uncertainty on that. What I do not follow though, is where does your assertion that such an economic model makes the game less costly to develop in money/manpower?
Then factor in that when many players looked to replenish their gear, they may have only looked at stuff similar to what they liked to use. They may not even have been aware that they could have made gear of similar power had they simply looked at different types of loadouts. Which then leads us to the whole part about players wanting a system that lets them earn what they wanted, as opposed to earning what happens to be available at the time.
I do not mean to be callous about it, there just isn't any way to get around that it was built in a way that didn't please a lot of people. We can pull out specific situations, we can argue that had a certain players simply done X, or simply accepted Y, then maybe they would have had a different experience. But, at the end of it all, the system was built to function a certain way that required a certain set of preferences to enjoy it. I understand why some folks liked it, I understand why some folks didn't like it. It is primarily a matter of preference in how an economic model works.
Before I can explore that possibility, I have to re-frame that question a bit.
I'm not sure that you meant to imply it but it is not fair to equate preference with patience in the context of this conversation.
That said, you are in luck, the above mentioned features tend to be well received. If the many successful shooter games that have incorporated RPG elements and/or progression systems are any indication, tons of shooter players are more than fine with choosing gear and earning currency. Firefall had those things long before the 6.0 patch, and there was no controversy surrounding them. It is clear that those weren't the mechanics that became a big point of contention among the community, it was a particular economic model. So then, if you're suggesting that you can make a full on crafter heaven economic model that only requires the actioner heaven player to do those basic things, then you may be on to something.
The proposal could use some refinements but I see where you're going with it. Something along those lines should function in a game just fine hypothetically. What leaves me uncertain is whether it would offer enough of the min/maxing and stat tweaking that the more extreme crafter fans crave. That is hard to say. Moreover, there is a niche of people who like a market that has true shifting availability. Such a mechanic, if done to a relevant degree, is just plain contrary to a quick-replace system. As one direction requires that sometimes certain things just aren't anywhere, while the other direction requires that everything is always somewhere. It is why I remain unconvinced that a true crafter heaven economy can exist alongside a true actioner heaven system. I do love trying to figure that out for fun though!
If by revolutionary you mean the first game to achieve both crafter heaven and actioner heaven simultaneously, maybe. But there is still uncertainty on that. What I do not follow though, is where does your assertion that such an economic model makes the game less costly to develop in money/manpower?
people seem to forget that before the corporations took every thing over with their trash throw away products there was an economy.
we DO NOT NEED durability to have an economy... I have given a few examples in earlier posts and those are not the only ways to do it.
I don't know why people keep mentioning getting resources for quests/missions.... FF is the only game i have seen this in and it killed thumping... why thump when you can do quests to get the resources AND get currency AND gear..... that is NOT a balanced economy at all.
(mats from thumping, BPs/RARES from exploring and currency from missions/quests)
seems (at the point i am at in the forum) that item destruction on death is were we are leaning now... the whole reason durability is being hated on in a game like FF is that it slows down the pace of the game.... this is a fast pasted game... this is not EVE.
because for a VERY LARGE portion of the old community having or not having durability will make... or break.... the game for them.
this is a bit disheartening, hopefully the decay will be very slow and NOT linked to deaths.
lol, people... we know the game needs sinks.
consumables are player bases can handle that just fine.
also if you have a good verity of resource quality then there will be a lot of people randomly crafting gear that isn't that great.
we DO NOT NEED durability to have an economy... I have given a few examples in earlier posts and those are not the only ways to do it.
I don't know why people keep mentioning getting resources for quests/missions.... FF is the only game i have seen this in and it killed thumping... why thump when you can do quests to get the resources AND get currency AND gear..... that is NOT a balanced economy at all.
(mats from thumping, BPs/RARES from exploring and currency from missions/quests)
seems (at the point i am at in the forum) that item destruction on death is were we are leaning now... the whole reason durability is being hated on in a game like FF is that it slows down the pace of the game.... this is a fast pasted game... this is not EVE.
because for a VERY LARGE portion of the old community having or not having durability will make... or break.... the game for them.
this is a bit disheartening, hopefully the decay will be very slow and NOT linked to deaths.
lol, people... we know the game needs sinks.
consumables are player bases can handle that just fine.
also if you have a good verity of resource quality then there will be a lot of people randomly crafting gear that isn't that great.
I'd like to throw in my two credits, as I can talk of how I had two special guns (CDR1000) that I had and after an update, the specs for that weapon had been nerfed, but any existing ones before the update had the older specs.
I really loved those guns, not only becuase they had great specs, but also very notable weapons.
I really loved those guns, not only becuase they had great specs, but also very notable weapons.