So as I understand it, the current durability bonus formula works by reducing the durability loss per hit by a percentage. For example if you have 90% bonus, a swing that normally costs 10 durability will cost 1 instead. I see a couple of problems with this:
- You’ve coded yourselves into a corner, where now that we can get up to 90% bonus with existing items/skills, it would break the game to ever add any more bonus options.
- It is not obvious that going from 0% to 10% increases effective tool durability by only ~11%, while going from 80% to 90% increases effective tool durability by 500%.
I propose changing the bonus to an efficiency bonus. Your character’s tool efficiency starts at 100%, and the bonus simply adds to it. So for example if you had 900% bonus, then your tools will last 10x as long (i.e. each swing will use 1/10th the usual durability).
I think this nicely addresses both of the issues above. Existing skills and buffs would need to be recalculated/rebalanced, of course.
I really don’t understand where people are getting all this math from when it comes to the durability buffs. As far as I’ve noticed and tested it’s pretty simple to figure out.
With 90% durability that already means 1 out of 10 uses of a weapon or tool or grapple takes away 1 durability. When I go bomb mining with Diamond Bombs and I am using Persisting Loaf, that’s a total of 80% durability buff. I’ve noticed and have tested multiple times that 1 out of 5 bombs decreases the bomb’s durability by 1. I’ve done this with Diamond Hammers too.
The durability food buffs and skills basically make your tool have more durability without the tooltip of the item being updated. Bombs at 90% durability buff have, in essence, 188 durability instead of 99. Gem Hammers have 3800 durability with 90% durability buff even if the tooltip still says 2000.
So I am a little confused on where you’re getting this 500% and 900% numbers from. To me the math isn’t really that hard. If I am missing something, then someone really needs to point it out cause I doubt it works like how I’ve seen people try and explain it.
90% durability buff means the weapon lasts 10x as long (which is +900%)
80% durability buff means the weapon lasts 5x as long (which is + 400%)
his point (and I agree) is that it would be better to state the change in how long the weapon/tool effectively lasts, rather than stating what percentage of durability loss is removed per use, since after 90% durability buff we cannot go to 100% or more, but only get closer and closer to 100% with smaller and smaller increments.
95% durability, 97.5% durability buff, 98.75% durability buff… which doesnt look very good compared to:
+400% duration of weapon use (80% durability buff)
+900% duration of weapon use (90% durability buff)
+1900% duration of weapon use (95% durability buff)
+3900% duration of weapon use (97.5% durability buff)
+7900% duration of weapon use (98.75% durability buff)
it also makes it clear “how much better” one is versus the other, easier to understand the difference between +100% and +1000% (10 x better!) then to understand that the difference between +50% durability buff and +91% durability buff is actually the same thing (10x better) (fyi @olliepurkiss)
Thanks @lucadeltodecso, was just about to reply but you explained it better than I could
So you’re saying 90% durability buff makes a Gem Hammer of 2000 durability have basically +900% more use out of it? So that means the item is 20,000 durability if it really is 10x better. Am I understanding that right?
I guess I wasn’t accounting for each of the points of durability that weren’t being subtracted from the item’s tooltip as points of durability. Am I understanding it better now?
EDIT: I probably was looking at it wrong from the very beginning. That’s really what it sounds like.
Nevermind, I still don’t get it. How are these +400% and +900% numbers being generated from 90% and 80% buff. I don’t get it. I don’t see anything that would indicate that is what’s going on.
90% bonus means only taking durability 1 in 10 hits. Put another way, the tool lasts 10x as long. 10x can also be represented as 1000%. This is a bonus of +900% (100% base + 900% bonus).
For 80% it is 1 in 5 > 5x > 500% > +400% bonus
Mathematically, we currently have
dura_loss = 1 - bonus
Proposal is to do:
dura_loss = 1 / (1 + bonus)
I guess I came to the math differently but get the same answer after I tinkered with the numbers. I know I am not great at math but I am not that horrible I can’t understand something once I know the formula behind it.
I basically did this and I probably overly simplified it too.
100% - B = D
B = buff %
D = Durability Lost (90% meaning 1 in 10)
Dx / D = TD
Dx = Item Durability
TD = Total Actual Durability
So, basically plug in numbers.
100% - 90% = 10% (or 0.1)
2000 (Gem Hammer) / 0.1 = 20000
20000 / 2000 = 10
Since I understand that part in my own weird way. How is what you’re proposing going to improve things? Other than giving more flexibility from the coding side of things.
It doesnt change anything from the coding perspective, it just changes what is presented in the gui effectively, so that you see numbers which (in my opinion) make more sense to look at and compare as its linear with respect to how long the too/weapon will last before breaking rather than linear with respect to durability loss, double the buff -> double the time the tool lasts, triple the buff -> triple the time the tool lasts.
Okay that does make since. Cause this entire time I thought that 90% buff meant that you’re tool’s durability just had invisible durability. I guess in a way it does cause it doesn’t count against a tool’s durability ticker when it’s used. So that’s why I thought 90% buff on a Gem Hammer was 3800 durability and not 20,000.
Definitely needs a GUI QoL change.
Actually I think the the calculations do have to change somewhat. The current +40% bonus from the pie translates to a different bonus in the proposed system, depending on whether you have the skills filled out or not. So unless the tooltip is going to change based on your current skills (awkward), the numbers will have to be rebalanced. It makes sense to keep the maximum the same, but everything in between would need to change.
Suppose the devs wanted to add another way to gain durability bonus, let’s say some sort of wearable item like armor or a ring. Right now the most they could get away with is an additional 5%. That’s awesome if you’re already at 90%, but underwhelming if you’re at 0%. The proposed changes would make it so you get the same benefit from the item no matter how much you have stacked already.
Well if we’re getting that high in durability then it would make sense to expand out the durability buff across multiple tiers of items and increase the difficulty to obtain or craft those better versions that give the buff. But that’s more of a gameplay balance thing.
Can you give me an example of how this would effect a Gem Hammer with 2000 durability using the proposed formula?
0% bonus is 2000 swings
5% bonus is 2105 swings
90% bonus is 20000 swings
95% bonus is 40000 swings
New system (let’s say 50% bonus instead):
0% bonus is 2000 swings
50% bonus is 3000 swings
900% bonus is 20000 swings
950% bonus is 21000 swings
In the new system the 50% bonus is always good for 1000 more swings on a 2000 durability tool, no matter how much other bonus you have.
So in the current system the 50% bonus lets you swing 4000 times but in the new system it’s 3000.
Am I getting that right? I don’t really get it since I don’t see the proposed formula working. 1 / (1 + bonus) doesn’t really tell me anything on how it is being proposed to work.
I think you guys did the same thing with the machines originally to. Putting the durability backwards. Everyone reads the wear of an item like a gas gauge. I’m glad you guys changed it. And I like what @ceresward noted.