Set Bonus?

[UglyBastard]

I like the idea of set bonuses, simply because it rewards secret hunting and completionist gameplay.

I know, that other games used set boni before, but why should that be an argument to not implent them? You may or may not have noticed, that LoG itself is a huge "Ripoff" (don't freak out over that word), nearly everything in the game has been seen before in a similar or even identical manner. Just not in the last years and with such magnificient presentation.
So I don't get how people get angry about set bonuses because "they were in Diablo" but not about tile based movement because "it was in DM" or about the uninspired 08/15 character creation which was in _insert generic RPG_(which I personally like, but it's hard to argue that it is original in any way).

Set bonuses were great fun in most of the games they were implented and I guess it would also be fun in LoG. There aren't many more rewarding things than completing a whole set and reap the benefits after puzzling yourself through some mindbending riddles to get the last piece.

To the argument that set bonuses would break the balance: well, then rebalance it a bit. Set bonuses don't need to be ridiculously overpowered, they just need to give you a nice little feeling of completion with a reward of some kind, like the mentioned light effect.

The argument, that you just want to be overpowered and better use cheatcodes then is completely nonsensical. It's a power you EARNED through rigid exploration and puzzle solving, which makes it satisfying. It was never mentioned, that the boni need to make the game easy. One must be very narrow-minded to not make a difference between earned rewards and cheating via console or codes.

Also I don't get why it would be a bad thing to force the player to make meaningful decisions like waging set bonus vs. unarmed gloves. Why is it better to have it the no-brainer way?

The reasons why wearing a complete set would give certain benefits are various, like perfectly matched armor pieces, that fit into each other greatly or some sort of magic activated by combining the powers of the singular items. I don't see any reason to nitpick at this, especially in a game where you move in tiles, shoot with magic fireballs and slap metal constructs like Wardens to pieces with your bare hands.

It is not a bare necessety and AH definitley didn't fail with not implementing it or does have to patch it in ASAP. But it's at least something to think about for future expansions or sequels, so why should it not be talked about?
The arguments why "it MUST not be implemented in any way" mostly don't make any sense to me.

[Zo Kath Ra]

Set bonuses don't have to be stats-based:
- When you equip the whole set for the first time, you receive a vision. Could be a piece of backstory related to the set.
- You need to wear the complete set to enter an optional area.

SpoilerShow

Like the Sword of Nex

Also, some armors might not like each other.
I'm talking about sapient magical armor here.
So if you're already wearing a piece of Elven armor, you can't equip a piece of Dwarven armor.
Unless you keep them far enough apart, like Elven boots and a Dwarven helmet.

[oodyboo]

That's an awfully long post to say, "I want more virtual rewards."

The items themselves are the reward for your "secret hunting and completionist" desires.

Presumption goes with the status-quo, and adding set bonuses and then "rebalance it a bit" is a pointless exercise. If anything this would just punish players who don't find every item in a set. As mentioned, set bonuses usually limit a reasonable player's gear choice. Why not just replace the entire equipment sheet with one slot for your entire "Armor Set"?

It's up to you to provide reasons why this change improves the game enough to justify the waste of time implementing it, rebalancing stats, and testing it.

I would rather AH spend their time building new dungeons and improving the attack interface.

[Thels]

That's an awfully long post to say, "I want more virtual rewards."

Except that that's not what we want.

If anything this would just punish players who don't find every item in a set.

According to your own logic, the set items are already so good, that they are being punished for missing out on it. The set bonus should of course be small enough not to have a real impact on the game.

As mentioned, set bonuses usually limit a reasonable player's gear choice. Why not just replace the entire equipment sheet with one slot for your entire "Armor Set"?

Because as said, it's a choice. Do I go for the full Valor set, or do I switch the gloves, because these other gloves are excellent for Unarmed.

It's up to you to provide reasons why this change improves the game enough to justify the waste of time implementing it, rebalancing stats, and testing it.

It's not like a few minor stat changes require the entire game to be rebalanced. LoG's balance is not and does not need to be as sharp as for example, most multiplayer games. But it's not even what I intended.

I'm just saying Set Bonuses would be cool. Just maybe enough people agree with me, and it could be implemented either in future official dungeons or in user-made dungeons.

Sure, you can go and grab a sledgehammer, and maul away at every single suggestion that anyone makes that's not 100% like LoG is now, just because "That's not the LoG way!", but that's not helping anyone in any way.

[UglyBastard]

Why are virtual rewards a bad thing? Usually you play for fun. Rewards are fun, especially the ones you earned the hard way.

I don't get the whole "it punishes players who don't find the whole set" thing. Why does it punish you? With this attitude you can also say that hiding items behind hard puzzles like the Sword of Nex punishes players, because they are very strong and at the same time so hard to obtain, that not all players will get them (the numerous whine/complain threads here are evidence enough).
I would rather say hiding items behind puzzles or encouraging thorough inspection of the levels to find a set REWARDS the player who makes the effort rather than PUNISHES the player who skips it.

Why exactly would it limit your gear choice to a gamebreaking extent? Now you give your warrior the armor item with the highest def rating, which happens to be Honour armor anyway and you'll probably finish the game with each piece of this set that you can find equipped because its simply the best stuff you can find. Imagine the Honour armor set gives the light aura while full plate mail gives +4 strenght, so you have to make a decision in some situations: What do you value more? A light slot or some more packrat power for the cost of armor? Instead of just using the Honour piece in a no-brainer way. Also I think the example with the fistfighter gloves which was used to prove that sets suck actually proves the opposite: It forces the player to make a decision about what he values more.
If you design the sets badly (eg full Honour +20 all stats), the feature will of course suck. But if you design it carefully it can even add a layer of depth besides being rewarding.

By the way, I doubt that it would be that difficult to implement this feature. I don't see why adding a light effect to the Honour armor or like +5 Dex for full Chitin would break the game and require an extensive testing period. I'm no coding expert, but I guess it would be rather easy to write, just a simple "if player wears this add that". AH implemted way huger features with the first patch and they wrote in a weekend or so.
Plus this is something that could be used in your high priority new dungeons to add a new twist to the well known and figured out gameplay.

I also liked Zo Kath Ra's suggestions, for example revealing a hidden switch due to truesight granted by a set.


I get that you (oodyboo) do not care the slightest about set bonuses, virtual rewards or whatever. But I honestly dislike the "I hate it so others may not enjoy it either" attitude that oozes from your posts. I don't think adding the said things would hurt you personally in any way and a good bunch of people will love it, so why get zealous about spoiling other peoples fun? It's not that this feature would alter an important part of the game design (like encouring free movement instead of grid based movement), it's rather a bonus that some people enjoy and others are free to ignore without any real impact.
I dont agree that adding minor set bonuses will screw the whole game balance and break LoG at all. I actually provided quite some reasons why it could be beneficial if done right but I can't see any convincing argument why it MUST NOT BE DONE (I guess I made a comment about each of these that surfaced in this thread so far).

[oodyboo]

I get that you (oodyboo) do not care the slightest about set bonuses, virtual rewards or whatever. But I honestly dislike the "I hate it so others may not enjoy it either" attitude that oozes from your posts. I don't think adding the said things would hurt you personally in any way and a good bunch of people will love it, so why get zealous about spoiling other peoples fun? It's not that this feature would alter an important part of the game design (like encouring free movement instead of grid based movement), it's rather a bonus that some people enjoy and others are free to ignore without any real impact.

I think you are projecting your own zealousness into my posts. I never said anything like "I hate it so others may not enjoy it either." If you actually read my posts I'm merely asking for a reason this feature is worth implementing, beyond "it would be cool if we got rewarded..." when you are already getting rewarded by finding the individual piece. If anything I'm trying to help you think through your ideas and clarify their usefulness.

You are correct that I don't care about set bonuses, and if they were in the game it wouldn't bother me either.

I dont agree that adding minor set bonuses will screw the whole game balance and break LoG at all. I actually provided quite some reasons why it could be beneficial if done right but I can't see any convincing argument why it MUST NOT BE DONE (I guess I made a comment about each of these that surfaced in this thread so far).

I never said anything along these lines. I have a feeling your own zealotry is causing you to see things that aren't there, just because I don't go lock-step with every random suggestion posted.

[UglyBastard]

Well in my opinion I made some pretty good points while you didn't so I guess we won't come to a conclusion about that. You actually made 5 posts in this thread about why it sucks to have this implemented, so if you are not interested in it in any way, why bother telling that over and over again?

We should probably hear what others have to say about this rather than engaging in a pointless argument.

Too bad there seems to be no poll feature.

[Thels]

I think you are projecting your own zealousness into my posts. I never said anything like "I hate it so others may not enjoy it either." If you actually read my posts I'm merely asking for a reason this feature is worth implementing, beyond "it would be cool if we got rewarded..." when you are already getting rewarded by finding the individual piece. If anything I'm trying to help you think through your ideas and clarify their usefulness.

Because while finding the individual items is cool, they are individual items. I had no idea I even had the sets complete (I kept expecting there would be Lurker and Chitin gloves), until I saw the list of achievements on GameBanshee, stating that Lurker/Chitin were four part sets. (I don't play over Steam.)

Yes, the items are nice, and they are a reward for finding them. However, that in no way makes them feel like a set whatsoever. More like different items that happen to have somewhat similar names/looks/stats. Adding a set bonus, however minor, would give them a feel of being an actual set, and giving the players reason to treat them as such.

[rakenan]

Yes, the items are nice, and they are a reward for finding them. However, that in no way makes them feel like a set whatsoever. More like different items that happen to have somewhat similar names/looks/stats. Adding a set bonus, however minor, would give them a feel of being an actual set, and giving the players reason to treat them as such.

Here's my problem with this suggestion. Put simply, so what? Why is it important that players have a reason to treat the items as an actual set? Why are set bonuses so critical to the "feel" of them being a set? Why bother adding a set bonus to gear that is already excellent in its own right?

The most set bonus I would support adding would be a pop up notifying you that you have completed the set, even if you are not using the Steam version, and even if you already actually have the achievement from a previous play through, the first time in each game that you equip the full set. Make it plain in the pop up that you gain no bonus stats from completing the set, but hey, you look fabulous, and that's what matters.

[Zo Kath Ra]

I sense a lot of nerdrage in this thread.

There'll be a level editor for Grimrock.
So if you really want a particular feature, you can make your own levels with that feature.
The editor will include scripting, so adding something like set bonuses should be possible.

</thread>