Grimrock

I'm sure it would be very easy to implement, even if it's not implemented already - there's triggers for items carried (sword of nex) so items carried by one specific character should be the same.

"It would be cool."

Yes, but what it comes down to is that it would also be pointless. This is a fundamental game design philosophical difference and the two camps are not going to see eye to eye on this, but you've got to strip it down from all the clutter and leave just the core of solid gameplay. Set bonuses are just frills and distractions. Ultimately, my issue is that it simply doesn't make the game better. After that it's simply a matter of "Why not have it?" vs. "Why have it?"

"Rewarding completionists?"

I would have thought completion was itself the ultimate reward for completionists.

Disasterrific wrote:"Rewarding completionists?"

Just read up? I already told you. It's to...



Make a set feel like an actual set.



Because right now they are not a set, just 4/6 items with similar looks/names/stats, but that are likely to be handed out to different characters and perhaps parts of it tossed away again. Now you might not care about that, but please stop thinking people are pushing this because they desire additional rewards...

Thels wrote:

Disasterrific wrote:"Rewarding completionists?"

Just read up? I already told you. It's to...



Make a set feel like an actual set.



Because right now they are not a set, just 4/6 items with similar looks/names/stats, but that are likely to be handed out to different characters and perhaps parts of it tossed away again. Now you might not care about that, but please stop thinking people are pushing this because they desire additional rewards...

They are a set though. They look cool together, their specs are complementary and they have the name. What warrior would pass that up?

If I drink my tea from a matching cup and saucer they don't suddenly make it taste like Jesus's piss. I've yet to hear what makes this a good design decision. It's just fluff.

This was mentioned earlier in the thread but what would actually be cool is if the set had a back story that was told through its completion or connected to/acquired through/etc. a separate quest.

Again another actual good way to implement this would be a powerful weapon or item that was assembled from various parts that had to be found.

Disasterrific wrote:This was mentioned earlier in the thread but what would actually be cool is if the set had a back story that was told through its completion or connected to/acquired through/etc. a separate quest.

Again another actual good way to implement this would be a powerful weapon or item that was assembled from various parts that had to be found.

These are both interesting ideas.

Disasterrific wrote:Again another actual good way to implement this would be a powerful weapon or item that was assembled from various parts that had to be found.

Like the Destiny Wand in Bard's Tale 2!

I seriously can not believe the hostility in this topic. I'm not even necessarily in favor of set bonuses, but some of you people on the opposing side are being downright rude.

Disasterrific wrote: Yes, but what it comes down to is that it would also be pointless. This is a fundamental game design philosophical difference and the two camps are not going to see eye to eye on this, but you've got to strip it down from all the clutter and leave just the core of solid gameplay. Set bonuses are just frills and distractions. Ultimately, my issue is that it simply doesn't make the game better. After that it's simply a matter of "Why not have it?" vs. "Why have it?"

It would not be pointless. It would serve several interesting purposes and has a multitude of justifications (the latter could be interpreted as purposes in and of themselves, for logical reasons):

(1) It would make realistic sense: A set of equipment built specifically to be used together would obviously be preferable to piecemeal armor sets; have you ever seen real armor? All the interlocking plates and straps and cords and whatnot? A warrior simply would be better in combat if his equipment fit together properly.

(2a) It could very well make sense within the context of the game. Perhaps a wizard enchanted the entire set of armor, never even considering that the pieces might be used individually; this is roughly equivalent to the (very nice!) idea of reassembling a magical item, except on a grander scale (that is to say: if the broken shards of an enchanted sword can be more than the sum of its parts, why not the scattered remnants of a suit of enchanted armor?).
(2b) It could also make sense if, under some circumstances, enchantments are more than linearly additive.

(3) Tactical depth. I'm going to use someone else's example of a full suit of armor with a light enchantment, because it was an absolutely brilliant suggestion.

Consider that, very probably, there is going to be at least one item which is individually superior to the corresponding item of a given set; eg, a pair of gauntlets better than say the Valor Gauntlets. Without a set bonus, this is a simple choice: use the stronger gloves. With the perfectly logical set bonus, however, the player is now allowed to evaluate this pros and cons on a deeper level: does he use the weaker gloves to free up another character's torch-hand? Does he wear the whole set simply because he's tired of casting light repeatedly? Does he use the stronger gloves because he values durability and power over all else? This is just one possible example.

This sort of tactical decision making is not only immensely enjoyable, but also already a key part of why people love games of this and similar genre.

Verus wrote:I seriously can not believe the hostility in this topic. I'm not even necessarily in favor of set bonuses, but some of you people on the opposing side are being downright rude.

Very strange you would say this since the only people who have insulted anyone are those who have posted in support of the idea.

oodyboo wrote:So the purpose is to give you more perks, why not just fire up the console and give yourself whatever you desire? Think carefully about your answer and the assumptions behind it.

Unbelievably rude. You're actively misinterpreting him and making false equivalences for the sake of a poor insult.

oodyboo wrote:

Thels wrote:Pointless discussion...

Agreed

Again, actively misinterpreting what he said to insinuate that the topic-at-large is the 'pointless discussion'. Dismissive and rude.

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

Again, dismissive, rude, and actively ignoring the point. Much like your above post ignored everything that wasn't calling you out.

Could you please return to the matter at hand, now?

If "actively misinterpreting" posts is rude, then you must be the rudest person on the planet.

I'm almost sorry for starting the topic, considering all the arguments it's been causing... Though admittedly, I did let my own annoyance shine in my own posts as well.

Either way, I don't think a game of "Who is the rudest person" is really going to do the thread any good... Let's just chill it off here.