Different Gear Qualities

[Sjustus548]

So I've been thinking about the different qualities of gear that we can get, Q1-5 and the "legendary" Q6. With the implementation of the randomized stats the only difference between the qualities is the number of mod slots. You can find a Q1 that has better stats than a Q5. So is there a reason to keep the different qualities now? Instead we could just have the gear and then a "legendary" version of it. The number of mod slots could be added in to the random stats of the gear as well. The perks that would normally let you craft better qualities could be changed to be able to craft versions with increasingly more mod slots. How do you feel about this suggestion?

[Katitof]

You can find a Q1 that has better stats than a Q5.

 

No, you can't.

Just an example:

 

Q1 is 10-20 stat range.

Q2 is 15-35 stat range.

Q3 is 20-30 stat range.

Etc.

[Sjustus548]

No, you can't.

Just an example:

 

Q1 is 10-20 stat range.

Q2 is 15-35 stat range.

Q3 is 20-30 stat range.

Etc.

 

I'm not seeing this at all in my game. Q1-Q5 armor has 10-13 armor. I don't know where you are finding Q3 armor that has 30 armor stat.

[Katitof]

Read second line I've wrote, ready it very slowly and as many times as you'll need to.

[HungryZombie]

So I've been thinking about the different qualities of gear that we can get, Q1-5 and the "legendary" Q6. With the implementation of the randomized stats the only difference between the qualities is the number of mod slots. You can find a Q1 that has better stats than a Q5. So is there a reason to keep the different qualities now? Instead we could just have the gear and then a "legendary" version of it. The number of mod slots could be added in to the random stats of the gear as well. The perks that would normally let you craft better qualities could be changed to be able to craft versions with increasingly more mod slots. How do you feel about this suggestion?

 

Nothing wrong with your suggestion. I don't find any real reason to keep the item qualities. However, I see no compelling reason to change it either. Does it cause some confusion or does it just aesthetically challenge your sensibilities?

[RipClaw]

In addition to the mod slots, the quality levels also differ in terms of durability. If you compare a Q1 armor part and a Q5 armor part then you will see the big difference. The armor rating depends mainly on the material of the armor.

[theFlu]

Read second line I've wrote, ready it very slowly and as many times as you'll need to.

 

You could also read the second sentence he wrote. Q1 to Q5 has 10-13, which, while it might be ranged somehow within those values, still implies that the ranges overlap mostly. Your example had the overlap disappear between ranks 1 and 3.

 

Saw it on a recent Kage848 episode, as well, he was comparing several pieces of iron armor, here:

29:45 Level 4 Iron Chest, 10 AR

30:02 Level 3 Iron Chest, 13 AR (plus mod)

30:13 Level 1 Iron Gloves, 12 AR

30:19 Level 5 Iron Gloves, 10 AR (plus mod)

 

As for the suggestion, sure, there's no real point to the qualities anymore, but I'd rather they make it significant somehow than remove it.

[Ghostlight]

No, you can't.

Just an example:

 

Q1 is 10-20 stat range.

Q2 is 15-35 stat range.

Q3 is 20-30 stat range.

Etc.

 

This is not correct. It might be true that a T1 being as good as a T5 is impossible, but the ranges definitely overlap a bit. I will give you a good (and super frustrating) example.

 

I found a T4 AK-47. Recently I became able to craft T5 AK-47s. However Despite several tries, I have yet to craft a T5 AK that is anywhere near as good as the found T4 I already had. The T4 has superior base damage and clip size to every T5 I have made to date. I've wasted a ton of resource trying.

 

I think we need to keep the quality tier, or else the perk would need reworked. I just wish there was NO WAY a T4 item could roll better than a T5 item. It really diminishes crafting in my eyes. I don't mind RNG as a thing, in fact I love the idea being brought to this game, but please just incorproate it in a sensible way. It *should* be the way Katitof illustrated above.

[jackhimer]

Quality should definitely affect the stats, but it doesn't. When the devs said random stats, they did not mean based on quality. I think, for example, they meant something like the game looks at an item and says "this is an iron chest piece. It has a random rating between 10 and 13.". That is for all chest pieces, regardless of quality.

 

I think most people would prefer for higher quality to have a higher range. Nothing crazy, just better quality is more likely to have better stats. And it just makes sense.

 

By the way, I am basing this strictly on my experience. Has anyone dug into the files and confirmed quality does not affect stats?

[Kalen]

Quality should definitely affect the stats, but it doesn't. When the devs said random stats, they did not mean based on quality. I think, for example, they meant something like the game looks at an item and says "this is an iron chest piece. It has a random rating between 10 and 13.". That is for all chest pieces, regardless of quality.

 

I think most people would prefer for higher quality to have a higher range. Nothing crazy, just better quality is more likely to have better stats. And it just makes sense.

 

By the way, I am basing this strictly on my experience. Has anyone dug into the files and confirmed quality does not affect stats?

 

Armor value doesn't appear to be modified by QL.

 

Per XML for iron gloves

 

<passive_effect name="PhysicalDamageResist" operation="base_add" value="10.3,14"/>

 

So the armor value is between 10-14 for any QL

 

Durability, however, is impacted by QL as is mod slots

 

<passive_effect name="DegradationMax" operation="base_set" value="400,800" tier="1,6"/>

 

I'm not entirely sure what this means, but I'm guessing it's 400 durability at QL1 and 800 at QL6.

[Sjustus548]

Nothing wrong with your suggestion. I don't find any real reason to keep the item qualities. However, I see no compelling reason to change it either. Does it cause some confusion or does it just aesthetically challenge your sensibilities?

 

As a long time gamer I think it bothers my sensibilities more. I always expect the higher tier piece to be better. Plus the addition of different colors automatically triggers that gamer instinct as to which piece is better lol.

 

Read second line I've wrote, ready it very slowly and as many times as you'll need to.

 

Read second line I've wrote, read it very slowly and as many times as you'll need to.

 

In addition to the mod slots, the quality levels also differ in terms of durability. If you compare a Q1 armor part and a Q5 armor part then you will see the big difference. The armor rating depends mainly on the material of the armor.

 

I should have clarified that I don't consider durability as being important on gear. Yes I would have to repair a lower durability item more often but that seems like such a small thing compared to having higher damage or more armor.

[Psychodabble]

So I've been thinking about the different qualities of gear that we can get, Q1-5 and the "legendary" Q6. With the implementation of the randomized stats the only difference between the qualities is the number of mod slots. You can find a Q1 that has better stats than a Q5. So is there a reason to keep the different qualities now? Instead we could just have the gear and then a "legendary" version of it. The number of mod slots could be added in to the random stats of the gear as well. The perks that would normally let you craft better qualities could be changed to be able to craft versions with increasingly more mod slots. How do you feel about this suggestion?

 

Why are we making more new threads on this same topic?

 

You started this thread: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?132496-Randomized-stats-and-different-tiers only 15 hours ago.

 

I started this thread: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?130618-Random-Stat-Implementation on the same topic a week ago and it already has 6 pages of discussion on it.

 

I'm glad that this is something people care enough about to post on and we agree on the matter of the subject, but constantly starting new threads just fragments the discussion and keeps people going around in circles discussing the same ideas instead of progressing.

 

As far as getting rid of quality levels, we might as well at this point. The color system is just misleading and creates a false expectation of a superior item that becomes a repeated letdown. Not fun, IMO.

 

I would prefer to make them distinct and meaningful than to scrap them, but the TFP view as articulated by Gazz in the thread I started does not support this.

[Sjustus548]

Quality should definitely affect the stats, but it doesn't. When the devs said random stats, they did not mean based on quality. I think, for example, they meant something like the game looks at an item and says "this is an iron chest piece. It has a random rating between 10 and 13.". That is for all chest pieces, regardless of quality.

 

I think most people would prefer for higher quality to have a higher range. Nothing crazy, just better quality is more likely to have better stats. And it just makes sense.

 

See that wouldn't be a bad idea either. Have Q1 armor be like 10-11, Q2 10-12 and so on. That way Q5 could have a max of having 15 armor. Not that big of a change at all but would still be a little better.

[Ghostlight]

Quality should definitely affect the stats, but it doesn't. When the devs said random stats, they did not mean based on quality. I think, for example, they meant something like the game looks at an item and says "this is an iron chest piece. It has a random rating between 10 and 13.". That is for all chest pieces, regardless of quality.

 

I think most people would prefer for higher quality to have a higher range. Nothing crazy, just better quality is more likely to have better stats. And it just makes sense.

 

By the way, I am basing this strictly on my experience. Has anyone dug into the files and confirmed quality does not affect stats?

 

Quality MUST affect stats in some way. It HAS to. You know how I know that? Because to have implemented 6 possible qualities on an item and then not have quality affect the item's base stats is the single most stupid thing I've ever heard of in game design. No dev could be so dumb to implement it that way. No one. For one thing there would never ever be a reason to craft higher quality items, except to sell (let's face it, Durability is utterly irrelevant). This information means crafting is pretty much dead in the game.

 

In addition I am sure I remember one of the devs stating that having quality not affect base stats was a definite mistake they acknowledged in A17 and they would fix it in A18.

 

It MUST affect it.

[Ghostlight]

See that wouldn't be a bad idea either. Have Q1 armor be like 10-11, Q2 10-12 and so on. That way Q5 could have a max of having 15 armor. Not that big of a change at all but would still be a little better.

 

 

You mean implement it the way anyone with a brain would do it? Interesting idea.

[Sjustus548]

Why are we making more new threads on this same topic?

 

You started this thread: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?132496-Randomized-stats-and-different-tiers only 15 hours ago.

 

I started this thread: https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?130618-Random-Stat-Implementation on the same topic a week ago and it already has 6 pages of discussion on it.

 

I'm glad that this is something people care enough about to post on and we agree on the matter of the subject, but constantly starting new threads just fragments the discussion and keeps people going around in circles discussing the same ideas instead of progressing.

 

As far as getting rid of quality levels, we might as well at this point. The color system is just misleading and creates a false expectation of a superior item that becomes a repeated letdown. Not fun, IMO.

 

I would prefer to make them distinct and meaningful than to scrap them, but the TFP view as articulated by Gazz in the thread I started does not support this.

 

My last post was on doing something to differentiate between the different tiers of armor and this post was to discuss getting rid of the different qualities of armor in favor of something a little easier. Not quite the same thing but I understand how it could look the same. I apologize for not using your post. I can't get the search function to show me anything so I usually look back for the past 3-5 pages of posts to see if there is another one I should use. Your's was back on page 6 so I didn't go far enough back to find it. I will try harder in the future to not make this same mistake.

[Laz Man]

You could also read the second sentence he wrote. Q1 to Q5 has 10-13, which, while it might be ranged somehow within those values, still implies that the ranges overlap mostly. Your example had the overlap disappear between ranks 1 and 3.

 

Saw it on a recent Kage848 episode, as well, he was comparing several pieces of iron armor, here:

29:45 Level 4 Iron Chest, 10 AR

30:02 Level 3 Iron Chest, 13 AR (plus mod)

30:13 Level 1 Iron Gloves, 12 AR

30:19 Level 5 Iron Gloves, 10 AR (plus mod)

 

As for the suggestion, sure, there's no real point to the qualities anymore, but I'd rather they make it significant somehow than remove it.

 

it's at least a rough indicator of number of mod slots. So it has at least some value. 😂

[Viktoriusiii]

You people are weird...

I have all Q6 now and they are better than anything I find except the exceptional T4 or 5.

And yes armor is a small exception because the range is so low, but effect resistance, durability and modslots are so important, I don't see why you all are so upset by this...

 

Yes its not ideal... but you people make this out to be the greatest injustice of all... but when I said how ♥♥♥♥ty A17 was you were all like "its the most awesomest alpha ever" wtf is with you people

 

Yes slight variation would be nice. Agreed. If they handled armor like weapons (so that every tier has higher chances of beeing better and a higher cap) it would be better. But as gazz said they want every armor to feel viable.

I too think that giving each tier +1 to the max cap and +3 to the max cap of effect resistance would be awesome, its not like this is ruining the game.

[theFlu]

My problem with the current armor is mostly it being locked down by design choices.

"Padded armor needs to be decent" seems to translate to lower cap of 30-35%

"The player should still take some damage sometimes" limits the top cap to, I think 75 in the actual implementation. Should check, but not relevant to the point.

 

Gap of 75 - 35 between best and worst armor.

 

40 points, 5 pieces of armor => 8 points of variability per piece, from the poorest rolled cloth piece, to the best rolled & modded Steel.

 

The mods have two points, which cuts that range into 6 for the 6 types and 5 tiers.

 

There's just no room for variance this way.

[Viktoriusiii]

My problem with the current armor is mostly it being locked down by design choices.

"Padded armor needs to be decent" seems to translate to lower cap of 30-35%

"The player should still take some damage sometimes" limits the top cap to, I think 75 in the actual implementation. Should check, but not relevant to the point.

 

Gap of 75 - 35 between best and worst armor.

 

40 points, 5 pieces of armor => 8 points of variability per piece, from the poorest rolled cloth piece, to the best rolled & modded Steel.

 

The mods have two points, which cuts that range into 6 for the 6 types and 5 tiers.

 

There's just no room for variance this way.

 

But its not 0-100.

It is actual damage reduction (at least that is how I understand this). And in effect resistance you actually see these 8 points in variance when comparing padded armor and steel armor.

 

 

I just feel people are outraged without actual numbers... and since gazz isn't really helping... I think someone @Roland should do some explaining how it works and what the values ACTUALLY do. (In numbers! Does it stack? What does armor stand for exactly and so on)

[Gazz]

Well, have you looked at the journal entries?

[Kosmic Kerman]

Well, have you looked at the journal entries?

 

Gazz, I’m not at my computer or I would check myself but are the journal entries in xml/text files now? I always tell myself I should read the journal entries but when I have time to play I’d rather do that than read the entries. The perfect time for me to read the entries is when I’m away from home looking to kill time.

[theFlu]

But its not 0-100.

It is actual damage reduction (at least that is how I understand this). And in effect resistance you actually see these 8 points in variance when comparing padded armor and steel armor.

 

You quoted me, but I don't understand your point. It IS actual damage reduction. Yes.

It IS 0-100. (limitations apply) It is 1 AR = 1% damage reduction, each piece added on top of one another. The tooltips/journal reflect that and I've tested it at points to confirm.

The possible values are hard limited to 90 AR = 90% reduction (based on a dev comment earlier (propably Gazz, maybe faatal)) and I think the current gear max adds up to around 75 total max (which is why I used that in my calcs)

 

The range is further reduced by the decision to make Padded Armor useful (anything below 20% would literally be a rounding error in this implementation with small integers in the damage event side). I don't disagree that Padded should be useful, but I'm proposing Changing The Maths from "armor value" to "damage reduction", to enable a functional scaling / variance system, by just having more numbers to play with.

 

Alternatively I'd propose switching to floating point math for hit points, or at least banking math (counting pennies instead of pounds) to allow for less-than-one distinctions to be made. But that alone would look terrible when deciding between armor pieces at the top end of the spectrum.. you'd be deciding if a loss of 0.15 armor is actually worth the "other thing x".