What is "Good itemization" to you?

[Dead]

I like magic items that have simple and powerful effects that can benefit and/or harm you depending on how you use them.

[Tweed]

Thing is, you could have all that in the background engine and never tell the player it has any of that other than it is a rare item that has strange powers from an ancient lore.

Ambiguity in a multiplayer lootfest is a terrible idea.

Depends on taste in play. EQ had a lot of ambiguity in the power of various items that took a lot of parsing to figure out specifics, and yet it was one of the most enjoyable MMOs I can remember playing.

I was thinking more for single play, but I don't personally see the issue with multiplayer having such. Usually this is an issue for people need to know every single micro level increase to min/max their performance and don't want to deal with the ambiguity.

Exactly, it's a terrible idea for games where you need to know the numbers. Diablo 2 has breakpoints and thresholds for most of its stats, people need to know exactly how much of something they need to hit each breakpoint for peak efficiency. At that high end you don't want any numbers going to waste and before you roll your eyes at people playing multiplayer games like this you should look at the kind of calculations they do in Gemcraft which is a single player tower-defense game.

[rusty_shackleford]

well, yes, but we're discussing RPGs not cookie clickers

[Xenich]

I like magic items that have simple and powerful effects that can benefit and/or harm you depending on how you use them.

Yeah, situational outcome items are great. It adds a nice layer of depth to the game play, especially when the developer counts on you understanding your environment and using tricky implementations of a normally negative effect in a positive way.

It reminds me of the AD&D concepts of a negative and positive energy and how they effect living and the dead based on use.

[Gregz]

well, yes, but we're discussing RPGs not cookie clickers

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

[rusty_shackleford]

well, yes, but we're discussing RPGs not cookie clickers

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

[Gregz]

well, yes, but we're discussing RPGs not cookie clickers

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Your forum needs a 'fake news' button.

[rusty_shackleford]

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Your forum needs a 'fake news' button.

Did you never notice that asian games are the games that have numbers going up to the billions? Gooks get off on that shit. "You did one gorirrion damage!! enter credit card number nao!!!"

[Dead]

Numbers must stop going up after a certain point or your character becomes a mere coat hanger for powerful equipment

[rusty_shackleford]

Numbers must stop going up after a certain point or your character becomes a mere coat hanger for powerful equipment

@Grogz thinks it's GOOD that your boots have more strength than your barbarian.

[Metalhead33]

Deus Ex did itemization right, methinks. As did Crusaders of Might & Magic, Dungeon Siege, and a few others.

[Xenich]

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Your forum needs a 'fake news' button.

Did you never notice that asian games are the games that have numbers going up to the billions? Gooks get off on that shit. "You did one gorirrion damage!! enter credit card number nao!!!"

If you played LotRO around the release, one of the common complaints by the WoW and mainstream players were the fact that weapons and skills didn't have big increases in stats and progression. I remember people complaining about things like having a .2 increase was too small because people didn't "feel" like it was doing anything (even though it was properly increasing ability). I always thought of arcade games with "MEGA POWER UP", "SUPER POWER UP" in the thinking that a number had to "show" itself big in order to think it was useful.

[Tweed]

Rusty thinks it's GOOD to stare at a wall for eight hours.

[Xenich]

Rusty thinks it's GOOD to stare at a wall for eight hours.

Chess vs Checkers.

[Anon]

well, yes, but we're discussing RPGs not cookie clickers

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

[Gregz]

Numbers must stop going up after a certain point or your character becomes a mere coat hanger for powerful equipment

@Grogz thinks it's GOOD that your boots have more strength than your barbarian.

If an item is that magical, then yes. The Gauntlets of Ogre Power (Gygax-approved D&D) grant your hypothetical barbarian superhuman strength. Did you complain about it then? Did you refuse to equip them on principle? *doubt*

[rusty_shackleford]

Numbers must stop going up after a certain point or your character becomes a mere coat hanger for powerful equipment

@Grogz thinks it's GOOD that your boots have more strength than your barbarian.

If an item is that magical, then yes. The Gauntlets of Ogre Power (Gygax-approved D&D) grant your hypothetical barbarian superhuman strength. Did you complain about it then? Did you refuse to equip them on principle? *doubt*

They're stupid and bad itemization. @Oyster Sauce was right.

[rusty_shackleford]

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Magic stops being magical when you know how it works.

[The_Mask]

The HoMM III paper doll should be what you should aim for unless your name is Chris Avellone, Hidetaka Myiazaki or George Ziets.



And BG II crafting is still peak crafting, except maybe for the part where you're baited with going through the portal and not getting the pieces of Wave (+4).

[Xenich]

Your forum needs a 'cope' button.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

[rusty_shackleford]

blackbox mechanics, as long as you're aware said mechanics exist, are fun.

[Tweed]

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

"What does it do?"

"It's an ancient magical shield from the land of--"

"Okay, fuck it, I'll just datamine the info..."

[rusty_shackleford]

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

"What does it do?"

"It's an ancient magical shield from the land of--"

"Okay, fuck it, I'll just datamine the info..."

People like you are why we can't have nice things.

[Xenich]

Horizontal progression is welcome as long as I don't need to keep 10 hats in my inventory.

If a game is going to insist on vertical progression (level up, get stronger) then I like when items that are direct replacements are clearly identified. Sword of Fire +2 works fine, but using materials like iron/silver/mithril is preferred.

I also prefer to have fewer more important choices than a loot pinata. Perhaps via having a few options in a tier, each with a negative status effect as well to further differentiate.

Constraints on which effects can appear in each slot is also helpful. It conveys a sense of structure and design countenance.

I also like set items... in theory. Usually it is too difficult to obtain them because the game has too much trash loot. The holy grail of itemization is something like WoW when you occasionally decide to forgo vertical progression items so you can continue to benefit from a set bonus on weaker items. Especially when you can mix a weaker 2-piece set bonus together with a new 2-piece set bonus for synergistic bonuses that eclipse the vertical progression or even the "best" 4-set bonus you have.

But for most games: delete all of the junk items, delete all crafting components, delete most equipment. I want a meaningful upgrade every hour or two, not a janitor simulator. It doesn't matter where the rat kept its gold.

I guess it depends on the system of play. In party based games, usually you balance a party out, so the items distribute in a manner where if a certain approach is needed, a party member provides the weight to the solution of that encounter. Magic also allows for some variation in this. As for straight melee, having some alternate items/weapons for varying uses that unlock, or can be researched to more effects would reduce the need for a massive bag of tricks.

Single player games are more tricky, but I think a balance of the above mentioned combined with variable approach to some encounters would reduce the need for massive bags filled with every sort of key for an encounter. Also, this would create a means for risk/reward in choices. That is, in some cases a persons selection of gear might make a very difficult encounter easy, but then because they don't have every solution (don't allow them to carry everything), they might have trouble in some moderate encounters due to the exact right tool.

I just don't think a player should get everything they want. They should have to choose and then through play deal with the pro's and cons of those choices in play. To me, negative aspects of play are just as important as positive. Some of the toughest, most frustrating encounters I have had in past games were often the most enjoyable. That is what a game should be in my opinion, choices that produce rewards and consequences (no optimal play throughs allowed).

[Anon]

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Magic stops being magical when you know how it works.

Nearly everyone who thinks "number goes up is best itemization!!" is some chink/gook playing the latest gacha garbage. Sorry, not RPGs.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

Bet 5th is your favorite D&D edition. Thac0 sucks amirite

[rusty_shackleford]

Bet 5th is your favorite D&D edition. Thac0 sucks amirite

I've never played any D&D edition past 3.5e, which I hated.

[Xenich]

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

"What does it do?"

"It's an ancient magical shield from the land of--"

"Okay, fuck it, I'll just datamine the info..."

More like basic description of its material which may hint at possible things, a crest or image that provides possible clues, or a brief inscription that is in riddle form that also might hint at possible features. Maybe it has a name or defined look and throughout the game, through picking up various lore via books, scrolls, or reading ancient glyphs on a wall provide more insight as to its nature and purpose.

On top of that, one could simply start using it and maybe through use you begin to notice various abilities, or situations where it provided a result that clued you into its function or feature.

Now, if that causes one to run off and look at cheat site, well... retards will be retarded and you don't design games around that, which is why most games are crap nowadays because they are designed for the person who can't seem to stand not having everything planned beforehand as to the perfect choice for every situation. The average "gamer" these days isn't interested in a game, but winning one while making all the right choices.

[rusty_shackleford]

Designing games around cheaters is why we don't have fun in games anymore. Anything that could be trivially beaten through saving/reloading has been removed, because we have to cater to cheaters of course. How long until they just remove combat because of this? Oh wait, Disco Elysium…

[Xenich]

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Magic stops being magical when you know how it works.

Being scared of numbers and information is a sign of lower intelligence though

Has nothing to do with that though. Systems that don't show you every detail require the player to learn things through play, make deductions on their experience with it, and weight decisions accordingly. When all the information is present, then it becomes "pick the highest number" game and you run into issues with people complaining about everything under the sun about the balance as if straight numbers account for practical application in play always. There is a reason new "builds" keep coming out over time with a game because through experience in play, people find applications that actually produce a better result.

There is nothing wrong with spreadsheet style play, but I think the point is that not every game should be forced into this as being an "ideal" concept of play, when it is more of a style, than a progression.

As I said previously, personally I found games that did not focus on telling you every detail and required the player to experiment through play to figure out things to be more enjoyable than straight number games. Though I do like to play the number games occasionally, if I am in the mood for it.

Bet 5th is your favorite D&D edition. Thac0 sucks amirite

As Rusty said, 1st/2nd is pretty much what I played.

Not sure if you are going at an insult about mathematical ability, that would be a poor assumption to make.

[Xenich]

Designing games around cheaters is why we don't have fun in games anymore. Anything that could be trivially beaten through saving/reloading has been removed, because we have to cater to cheaters of course. How long until they just remove combat because of this? Oh wait, Disco Elysium…

Yeah, I remember playing entire campaigns in AD&D where the entire point was trying to figure out what the item was, what it could do, and how powerful it was.