237
\$\begingroup\$

When you give the player a rare but powerful item which can only be used once but is never really required to proceed, most players will not use it at all, because they are waiting for the perfect moment. But even when this moment comes, they will still be reluctant to use it, because there might be an even better moment later. So they keep hoarding it for a moment which will never come.

In the end, they will carry the item around until it is outclassed by other, more readily available resources, or even until the very end of the game. That means that such one-shot items don't provide any gameplay-value at all. They are simply too awesome to use.

What can you do to encourage the player to make use of their one-shot items and not hoard them?

\$\endgroup\$

34 Answers 34

1
2
1
\$\begingroup\$

Break the rules

This question arises from the already standard item system in most of the RPG games. The perfect example would be potions, there have been many memes regarding the collecting of potions, because "I might need them later".

Every RPG producer had to face the problem and many have failed. This comes from the wrong understanding that

"The item system works like this and it has to work like this, because every other game does it like this!".

But it doesn't. And The Witcher 3 proves it.

In The Witcher 3 the potion system works differently. Here you have a limit of potions you can carry, but after using them you can refill them anytime outside of battle using alcohol.

"But there will be no fun of searching for that legendary potion/item!"

You are right. After using your potion there will be no fun of searching for it again. However if not the system - the player wouldn't even use the item - meaning there would be no fun either. Players often prefer to die and fight again than to use that "too awesome to use" item.

This system brings a different "fun mechanic" though. Instead of searching for that potion you used in a fight, you will spend your time searching for an upgrade of that potion. It can even introduce additional quests to the gameplay.


In your case

There may be a thousand solutions to your problem and it's usually a bad idea to force a player to do something by external limits, like time limit or to reward player for using the item. Tynan Sylvester covers the topic in his book Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. So before adding artificial rewards or punishments you should really consider advantages and disadvantages of that.

I already brought up the topic of potions in The Witcher 3, so to reflect it on your situation you could design the item to be "craftable". Let's say - you found that legendary weapon and will not use it in a fight, because you will lose it forever. But in our situation finding this item also allows you to craft it later. Or if the item was something magical - it allows you to summon it in a magic location.

It not only won't reduce the fun of using this item - it might increase it hugely by adding new mechanics to the game.

In any case you should still balance the item - "awesome" shouldn't mean "gamebreaking". If it is a single use item which kills a dragon in a second then it probably needs balancing anyway.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

If an item is too good to be at least rare (such as the Megalixer), yet it is a 1-use/expendable, yeah players are going to hoard it.

This isn't really a problem. Your game is cooler for having awesome rare items that don't manage to break the game. And there's always the 1 in a million chance that a player would find such an item useful.

But if these ultra-cool unattainable non-usables still bother you, it sounds like the item may need to be:

a) reduced in effectiveness and made more common

b) made at least replaceable (if at an astronomical price)

c) made not expendable but given a really long recharge time instead

d) taken out of the game altogether

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
-2
\$\begingroup\$

Maybe it'll will work in "super-need" situation. e.g.: a-bomb got 2000 points of splash damage, typical mobs got only 100 health points and easily beaten with sword. but here comes boss with 2500 health points and his minions. you can't beat him... or you can, if you use your a-bomb. then boss will stay alone with 500 health points, so you can (not so) easily kick his *.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ What if the player uses the a-bomb before reaching the boss? \$\endgroup\$ – dpatchery May 15 '13 at 17:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ Morrowind-like thing? "Live in your sacred world now"? Actualy, i see other question in topic - "How to make player use awesome feature". Not "how to keep player from using awesome feature". But yeah, my "a-bomb" thought is not so transparent tho. Will try pick other example later. \$\endgroup\$ – KatShot May 15 '13 at 20:07
-2
\$\begingroup\$

You can punish the player for carrying it, either by taking up many available slots, or slowing him down, you can make him unable to use other weapons when carrying it, and you can make the vending price low. Also, you could make the ammo of a radioactive type, which decays so its strength is reducing while carrying it.

| improve this answer | |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, all of those would make me throw it away, not use it. \$\endgroup\$ – Nicol Bolas May 15 '13 at 18:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ You cant throw it away, its bound to you until you use it. \$\endgroup\$ – user30714 May 15 '13 at 18:14
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ And that would make me stop playing the game. Giving me an item that inhibits my ability to play is not fun. \$\endgroup\$ – Nicol Bolas May 15 '13 at 18:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Great, aslong as you already bought it, we are glad to get rid of you. \$\endgroup\$ – user30714 May 15 '13 at 18:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't like games in which it is better for a player to waste a valuable item than to conserve it. If there are limited inventory slots, a player may decide that dropping an unused item and taking something else would be better than keeping the unused item and forgoing the new item, but to the extent possible a game should allow the player to return for the dropped item should that be desired. \$\endgroup\$ – supercat May 16 '13 at 22:41
1
2

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.