Profile of Inverse

I just don't see how any system involving item durability can be construed as a positive. No matter how it's implemented, items degrading over time is not going to be good for the consumer.

I mean, I figured it was obvious that this is all speculation. But they used a very similar system in CoHO, I think it was actually called supply there as well, and it worked how I described. If they don't make any changes, I expect it will work the same way. Hopefully they do make changes, though, because the CoHO model was a disaster.

You can extrapolate a lot from those strings. Giving items durabilities means giving them the ability to degrade, which means you need a way to restore degraded items, which in turn is a clear avenue for microtransactions. Obviously nothing is set in stone. For the sake of the game, I really hope they don't actually implement a durability system, because it would be a disaster.

I really don't think items you pay real money for will ever lose durability, they will most likely be of "premium quality" and will never break.

They did in CoHO.

I would not say that adding wear to items is a horrible idea. The reason why all game economies eventually fail is because there is no wear. The more things get dropped, the price of each thing drops significantly over time, because there is more of it. With wear, the price of a single item will stay constant.

Of course, it al depends on how it is implemented. Knowing relic, i am very skeptical.

The two most successful item economies right now are Dota 2 and CSGO, two games with zero degradation. Instead, item prices are time-sensitive, which is great. Enthusiasts can pay a bit more for earlier access to new items, and regular players can get cool items on the cheap later. Furthermore, item values are inflated by their drop rates and production runs, for lack of a better word. CSGO knifes cost upwards of $300, and Dota 2 couriers and certain items routinely sell for over $100. If you constantly release new content and cycle your drop list, you don't suffer from over-saturation.

I'd actually argue the opposite, that adding durability actually deflates the values of items. Why purchase an expensive item when you're just going to have to keep spending more to maintain it?

The problem with durability is it actively discourages people from purchasing items. Why spent money on a cool-looking decal or skin when it's going to disappear in 50 games unless you pay more money? I never would have spent a dime on Dota 2 or CSGO if the items I paid for were going to disappear unless I paid more to "maintain" them.

This is another example of Relic attempting to milk the small percentage of its already small playerbase who are inclined to spend large amounts of money on DLC. Those people aren't going to care about a few bucks every once in a while to repair their items, but the average player who just wants a few cool skins or stickers for his vehicles is going to think twice if he knows he's going to have to shell out more money next month just to keep using what he's already purchased.

Where are you getting a ranking system from? This is just another way for them to make money with microtransactions, and to give people more things to drop after games.

The balance forum must be really hard to find today.