Soo... When is the next patch?

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Take a look at the Exiles/Avernum series by spiderweb software. They manage to provide quite a lot of replay value without random items or maps. The game world can actually change if you take too long to get something done, for instance, so you can take things in different directons.

There are cases for both situations, and both types of players. But personally, I find games with random items less immersing and decrease the original play value (and hence the replay value) considerably. If they're partially random, like as in Sacred or Divine Divinity, I can live with it. But if they're near completely random, as in Diablo 2, they never manage to hook me.

On the other foot, there's the whole niche of Roguelike games, but I won't get into that right now. I don't have that much to say.

[Sombre]

I rather liked the magic item creation in master of magic, which was of course a pick and choose approach.

[NTJedi]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
Take a look at the Exiles/Avernum series by spiderweb software. They manage to provide quite a lot of replay value without random items or maps. The game world can actually change if you take too long to get something done, for instance, so you can take things in different directons.

A fixed map, with fixed towns and fixed NPCs mean that by the third time you play the game you know where to find the important quests, where to find the important NPCs/Monsters and best locations for advancing your character. THE MAIN MYSTERIES within the game are gone after a couple games!

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
There are cases for both situations, and both types of players. But personally, I find games with random items less immersing and decrease the original play value (and hence the replay value) considerably. If they're partially random, like as in Sacred or Divine Divinity, I can live with it. But if they're near completely random, as in Diablo 2, they never manage to hook me.

On the other foot, there's the whole niche of Roguelike games, but I won't get into that right now. I don't have that much to say.

I'm not saying only random items, I'm advising both for a game. A game with 10,000 items which uses the example formula I provided has greater replay value than a game with 200 fixed items. On a game with only 200 fixed items there's a more likely chance the gamer will find the best weapon and armor which then removes one of the fun features known as treasure/weapon hunting. Not much to chat with family and friends about when you've found XYZ weapon which has also been found several times by 20% of other gamers.
What's great about Dominions_3 is the quantity of the game content and 10,000 items, monsters, maps, npcs, quests is greater than 200 of the same.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I know where you're coming from, but for the purposes of enjoying this debate, I'll focus on the opposition.

So, really, what's so fun about killing 1000 monsters in Diablo, and getting equipment you'll never be able to use?
At least in Nox, your time wasn't wasted with out of class loot. In Nox, you certainly did know where equipment was, but the underlying mechanics were good enough on their own merits. As well, even if you got the best weapon, the careful level design meant it did not suck all the fun and challenge out of the level. In practice, as well, the complete lack of random items and random drops meant that you could not farm respawning monsters for gold. That meant there were game altering decisions based on your purchases at the shops. The first time trough, you'd buy and sell the best equipment you could afford. Which wasn't much. Never stuck with the best unless you found it first. The second time through, you'd consider whether you could afford to skip that purchase. Knowing where the 'best weapon' actually increased the challenge, not decreased it. Certainly, if you bought something in a store, found the good weapon, and sold back the weaker one, it was easier. But the highly limited amount of gold and exp in the game (no farming) meant that to really maximise the benefit of that weapon, you had to go in and get it without making a shop purchase. It actually increased the challenge. As well, this whole 'best weapon' thing is nonsense when there is no random monsters or items, and serious thought gets put into weapon and monster design and placement.

[NTJedi]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
So, really, what's so fun about killing 1000 monsters in Diablo, and getting equipment you'll never be able to use?

I personally feel the monsters from Diablo_2 were not made correctly. The average monsters died way too quickly(1 or 2 blows) and most enemy bosses could kill the player way too quickly.
I also disagreed with how Diablo_2 dropped way way too many items and disagreed how Diablo_2 had chests lying all over the place.

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
At least in Nox, your time wasn't wasted with out of class loot. In Nox, you certainly did know where equipment was, but the underlying mechanics were good enough on their own merits. As well, even if you got the best weapon, the careful level design meant it did not suck all the fun and challenge out of the level.

NOX was a good game and I'd still be playing it today if the game didn't have fixed maps.

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
In practice, as well, the complete lack of random items and random drops meant that you could not farm respawning monsters for gold. That meant there were game altering decisions based on your purchases at the shops. The first time through, you'd buy and sell the best equipment you could afford. Which wasn't much. Never stuck with the best unless you found it first. The second time through, you'd consider whether you could afford to skip that purchase. Knowing where the 'best weapon' actually increased the challenge, not decreased it.

The farming problem is because developers don't create a changing evolving world. Thus there might be a quest to kill enemy boss XYZ which is the foretold destroyer of the current world yet the player could take 5 years or more where nothing in the game changes. Since players know the game doesn't have any real threat of you losing after X amount of time thus gamers spend time farming. Eventually we might see a game where the harder difficulties cause bad events to happen in the game world which effects the player(s) who's wasting time farming or being lazy. Poor Diablo never stood a chance because him and his minions were couch potatoes.
Knowing where the best weapon can be found might increase the challenge initially yet if you've played the map 3 times or more then the challenge continues to decrease as you know what to expect.

Lazy_Perfectionist said:
Certainly, if you bought something in a store, found the good weapon, and sold back the weaker one, it was easier. But the highly limited amount of gold and exp in the game (no farming) meant that to really maximise the benefit of that weapon, you had to go in and get it without making a shop purchase. It actually increased the challenge. As well, this whole 'best weapon' thing is nonsense when there is no random monsters or items, and serious thought gets put into weapon and monster design and placement.

The serious thought for the placement of monsters and items should be left to the gamers which use the map editor and modding tools. A perfect example of this is the original Neverwinter Nights where the editor has produced tens of thousands of campaigns which satisfy the tastes of every RPG or hack/slash gamer or whatever tastes in the middle and beyond. As time passes when the developers have moved onto other work the editing gamers can then continue to evolve/expand/improve these campaigns for the community. Let the developers provide us with the random map/world generation, game editor and modding tools while talented fans from the community create the MANY uniquely creative campaigns.