217 réponses à ce sujet

[Crackseed]

There were sufficiently difficult fights where even ducking in cover for 5 and regenning your health didn't make the combat "easy" - I think Horizon stands out as one of the most difficult sections on a non-NG+ ME2 playthrough since you're generally stuck with pre-Collector ship weaponry and being swarmed by both Collectors at range and Husks pushing you out of cover...then you got the Scions and the damned Praetorian.

[The Spamming Troll]

thats because the point of shields in ME2 was to last for maybe 1 second.

would it be better to give more total HP to health and less to shields? i dont remember a game that featured something like that, so idk how that might work.

[Crackseed]

I'm sure there is always room to iterate and improve on a given system, but I think within the scope overall ME2's system worked - if there's any fault to it [and I apologize for repeating myself again] it's more that levels offered too much cover and the AI was not aggressive enough or there weren't enough melee AI units to keep you on your toes.

[Miroslav_s46]

Balance, balance, that's everything the regen system is about, the way ME2 handled it was good, but there's a lot of room for improvement (damn veins, shepard needs tunnel vission), also as Bozo has stated elsewhere, the shield powers (specifically tech armor) could use some work too, but my point is that health should be limited in some way, not in the way others have implied, maybe health is slower to regen or something like that, but we most remember that any implementation here is for ME3, not for ME2, as any of them would prove to be too extreme

[Tony Gunslinger]

Zem_ wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Indeed, and what's the difference between having to reload a couple times to complete a fight with limited health and not having to reload but instead the fight will last much longer. It comes down to the same thing - time required to complete a fight - I prefer using cover and wait for regen over using the reload button all the time.

The difference is that in the health regen case you don't "lose".  That is to say, you don't lose bcause of repeated health damage.  You only lose when you receive too much health damage too quickly.  In the case of medkits, you can also lose when you run out of medkits. 

It depends on how either are implemented. If heath regen activation time is too quick, then you rarely lose. If there are plenty of medkits, then you rarely lose as well. If medkits are too few, then the tempo of combat is bogged down. The problem with medkits is that it's always either too few or too many.

- If medkits are limited, then game designers either make the combat easier or make health more abundant, neither of which are going to compel players to make tough choices. When they do make a hard fight in a game with limited medkits, it either becomes a camping fest, or they artificially place a lot of medkits lying around before a hard battle, which is a dead giveaway.

- If medkits are plenty, then game designers either make the combat harder or make health really low, either of which only compels players to exploit medkits more, and an entire gameplay strategy can be based around that (ie: FO3)

With health regen, any mistake that doesn't almost immediately kill you is basically consequence free.  There is no difference between not being hit the entire fight and being damaged to within a sliver of death.  So long as you make it through the fight... all is forgotten.   Kicking butt is pretty much the same as just barely scraping by.  Not so with medkits.  At least not if you have a bad enough battle that you can't replenish all that you lost.  That poor performance carries over into the next fight.  It's a great incentive to get better.

There are consequences in ME2 because of the way the enemies are thrown at you, and there is an indication of how well you perform in how you can keep your squad alive. Medkits are not only for yourself, but also for your team.

In almost every fight, there are enemies that punishes you for camping. Vorchas fights have their Krogan chargers and pyros. With mercs, either they deploy mechs (Loki/Fenris/YMIR) to flank you, or heavies with tracking rockets. With the Geth, they have Destroyers and Primes. With the Collectors, they deploy husks and Scions. In Arrival, regular mercs double-flank you in addition to pyros. With the exception of Freedom's Progress and Mordin's recruitment, (both are actually training missions), all fights have flankers. If you stay in the same place without moving too long, more enemies will be deployed.

Whenever you're under cover for whatever reason, they focus on attacking your squad. This is why being point to take a beating and moving closer to the enemy is generally the better tactic if you want to protect your team on insanity. If you hang back, you may be safer, but your team will not. This is sort of why some people think squadmate AI are stupid. Sometimes they are, but most of time they die on insanity is because you're not aggressive enough or didn't make the right decision.

So there is a tradeoff: being aggressive and risk dying to keep your squad alive, or stay in cover to protect yourself but your team will get shot up, and eventually you either play solo or sacrifice a few medkits. Without being able to regen after a successful flanking move, you would never want to make the aggressive choice.

Sidenote: in ME2, shields are good at shortening stagger animations and preventing stunlock from flamethrowers, enemy powers, drones, and missiles. When your shields are down, you are dead from pyros regardless of health regen. Drones and enemy warp/incinerate stagger you, and without shields, the animation is longer. Heavies on insanity increases their missile firing rate, and with no shields you will die from stunlock. Harbingers' and Scions' attacks blocks health regen, and Harby's black missiles knocks you out from cover. All of these things are built to counter health regen.

This is also why I was a fan of the new limited ammo in ME2 vs the regenerating ammo of ME1.  It functions much the same way.  Not to mention encouraging me to make use of ALL of my abilities instead of relying on just one inexhaustible supply of ammo for my favorite gun. 

Ammo and health are different because when you're out of ammo, you switch to another weapon and you can still use powers. When you're out of health and out of medkits, you can't switch to another body, you die.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 18 juin 2011 - 02:36 .

[CC-Tron]

lazuli wrote...

Undertone wrote...

ME1 had it right in my book. Rechargeable shields, manual healing of your health.

You're completely ignoring the health regeneration gained through armor mods, achievements, and class abilities.  Mass Effect 1 did not feature a well-balanced system of health management.  Even on Insanity, if you had built your character correctly there were only a few types of attacks that were smart to avoid.

We've seen some clips of Shepard's health regenerating in ME3.  I'm glad it's near the ME2 system.  I'm also glad those red veins are gone, but that's neither here nor there.

I saw the red veins in one of the ME3 demos. It was either veins or blood that clouded the screen when Shep took too much damage. I think they're here to stay.

[Shotokanguy]

I guess I'd better share my view on this again...I've given it thought before and I feel like it's kind of important to making ME3 the best possible game. Ok, here goes.

Regenerating health is not the ideal system. It works, but I'm sure if we had a choice between it and a way to regain health realistically and easily enough that the game is fun without removing the challenge, we'd all take the latter.

In an RPG, I just don't think regenerating all of your health in a couple of seconds is good enough. RPG's are about variance and complexity, despite my loathing of the RPG superfans that have plagued the Mass Effect fanbase since ME2's reception. I don't want a bunch of arbitrary numbers and meaningless loot, but something like health can be given the RPG attention without being overly complex.

My idea for ME3 has always been to keep regenerating health systems in the armor, but have none or very few that restore all of your health, and for sure don't make it happen quickly. While ME2 is clearly superior in gameplay compared to ME1, to me, I still remember early on wondering why Shepard was a bullet magnet in ME2...

So, I'd propose that all armor comes with a piece (such as the black part underneath the actual armor pieces) that controls stats like health regeneration. Start us off with the N7 undersuit, maybe it restores 50% of your health over 5 seconds. Maybe you can buy a "Krogan skin suit" that restores 30% of your health in 3 seconds after only 2 seconds of not taking damage.

Simple ideas...it would add more customization, and I'm sure make the people on the "MORE RPG!" side happy too.

[lazuli]

CC-Tron wrote...

I saw the red veins in one of the ME3 demos. It was either veins or blood that clouded the screen when Shep took too much damage. I think they're here to stay.

But they... they're toned down, right?

I didn't really care that much about them in ME2.  The first time I saw them, they were horribly jarring.  Then I got used to them.

Recently, though, I've had issues with the veins completely blocking my vision and hiding obstacles from me.  It conveys a sense of urgency.  It also conveys a sense of OHMYGAWDWHYCAN'TISEE, which should be left firmly in the domain of the flashbang grenade.

[ZeroEffect]

It's not a matter of whether or not it's realistic. Not being able to regenerate health does nothing for actual gameplay. It creates a tedious methodical approach of either a) I can't take damage, or I have to go around collecting health packs and using them. This does nothing but slow the game down in a way that isn't interesting or fun for the player. This is the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish with the combat system in ME3.

That being said, I don't think Mass Effect's system is by any means perfect. There isn't really a differentiation between health and shields other than the effects of certain abilities, since they both work on the same recharger. I would like the current system to work for shields and to have a constant but slow health regeneration rate. This would increase the danger of losing health within an individual confrontation without creating a tedious effect the player has to worry about. In fact, players would be able to play more aggressively when lacking shields than they currently do, especially players that chose a usable defense boost (which could stave off damage and allow your health to continue regenerating). In addition, there would be a legitimate differentiation between the health bar and your shield/barrier/armor bar other than simply what upgrades and abilities affect which.

Modifié par ZeroEffect, 18 juin 2011 - 04:07 .

[vader da slayer]

barring the fact that they are unrealistic it actually adds a bit more realism for me. if you have ever read any of the books (especially the first one, Revelation) you know what I mean. in the books they discribe combat as highly fluid because if you stay in one place too long you will die. and to make things worse Kinetic Barriers are only capable of withstanding a few hits (smilar to Insanity) and after that a few more kills you (again similar to insanity). so in a way the regen health (which means less health than compared to ME1) adds a bit more realism to the game because you will actually die from a mere few hits.

[Gatt9]

ZeroEffect wrote...

It's not a matter of whether or not it's realistic. Not being able to regenerate health does nothing for actual gameplay. It creates a tedious methodical approach of either a) I can't take damage, or I have to go around collecting health packs and using them. This does nothing but slow the game down in a way that isn't interesting or fun for the player. This is the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish with the combat system in ME3.

Regenerating health in 5 seconds does nothing for gameplay.  The general theory is "Risk vs Reward",  there's no risk in a regenerating system,  you expend no resources,  risk nothing,  you just crouch for 5 seconds (Which is coincidently just about exactly how long the enemy will fire at you at one time),  then return to fighting.

Like many of the games today,  designed to be ultra fast and to make sure that the player doesn't ever have to face any challenge,  because failing "Isn't fun" and Developers apparently think that players don't want to play any game that has even 1 second of "Not fun".

[Shotokanguy]

You know something we could add to my post and the article the TC posted?

Enemies usually don't have the same health system. And that sucks.

I found it pretty ridiculous that enemies in ME2 hardly ever regained health or shields, but I never really thought about it much because gameplay is still so good.

But that will not fly for ME3. It's cheap.

[Praetor Knight]

Shotokanguy wrote...

You know something we could add to my post and the article the TC posted?

Enemies usually don't have the same health system. And that sucks.

I found it pretty ridiculous that enemies in ME2 hardly ever regained health or shields, but I never really thought about it much because gameplay is still so good.

But that will not fly for ME3. It's cheap.

Well there are Krogan and Vorcha.

And I've assumed that Shepard has some sort of Medical Exoskeleton installed by default, into the body armor in ME2 that allows for the medi-gel to refill health automatically as we know if we stop behind cover or longer out in the open for a spell.

And if we want, we can say that, that's the case because Cerberus gave Shepard a suit of body armor with improved gadgets and gizmos compared to the ME1 Alliance issued body armor, and whatever else Shepard found scavenging the galaxy.

I mean Cerberus did bring Back Shepard and provide him a nice Ship and nice arsenal.




So for ME3, maybe armor could be more customizable than we realize, and with how we can improve our powers, why not make changes to our armor in a similar fashion?

So, if health regen is really that much of an issue for some gamers, then maybe we can add or subtract from it's potency, just as different aspects of powers can be modified.

So if one wants they can leave the section that provides the unwanted benefit alone, and maybe upgrade something else in its place? That way there is something else that can be tailored to what gamers want.

It's a thought at least right?

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 18 juin 2011 - 05:30 .

[DocLasty]

Gatt9 wrote...

ZeroEffect wrote...

It's not a matter of whether or not it's realistic. Not being able to regenerate health does nothing for actual gameplay. It creates a tedious methodical approach of either a) I can't take damage, or I have to go around collecting health packs and using them. This does nothing but slow the game down in a way that isn't interesting or fun for the player. This is the exact opposite of what they are trying to accomplish with the combat system in ME3.

Regenerating health in 5 seconds does nothing for gameplay.  The general theory is "Risk vs Reward",  there's no risk in a regenerating system,  you expend no resources,  risk nothing,  you just crouch for 5 seconds (Which is coincidently just about exactly how long the enemy will fire at you at one time),  then return to fighting.

Like many of the games today,  designed to be ultra fast and to make sure that the player doesn't ever have to face any challenge,  because failing "Isn't fun" and Developers apparently think that players don't want to play any game that has even 1 second of "Not fun".

One could argue that wanting a videogame to be fun all the time isn't exactly a strange desire.

I'd buy the anti-regen argument more if Mass Effect didn't provide many,  many enemies that would punish you for staying in cover too long. Husk, Varren, those little robot dogs, the mechs, AI drones, et cetera, and it's not like the regular enemies just stayed in one spot - if you're not careful about your positions and stay moving, they will flank you.

If you don't like it, fine, but please stop with this whole 'Gamers today want it easy, blah blah blah', games were tough in my day!' BS.

[lazuli]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

So for ME3, maybe armor could be more customizable than we realize, and with how we can improve our powers, why not make changes to our armor in a similar fashion?

So, if health regen is really that much of an issue for some gamers, then maybe we can add or subtract from it's potency, just as different aspects of powers can be modified.

So if one wants they can leave the section that provides the unwanted benefit alone, and maybe upgrade something else in its place? That way there is something else that can be tailored to what gamers want.

It's a thought at least right?

My concern is that health/damage management is such a central component of the combat that attempting to fit both styles in would compromise the balance of the game. 

I think regenerating health should remain in the game, perhaps with an even shorter period of downtime.  To make up for this, enemies should pressure Shepard and his/her squad more, forcing them to remain mobile to survive.

[DocLasty]

Shotokanguy wrote...

You know something we could add to my post and the article the TC posted?

Enemies usually don't have the same health system. And that sucks.

I found it pretty ridiculous that enemies in ME2 hardly ever regained health or shields, but I never really thought about it much because gameplay is still so good.

But that will not fly for ME3. It's cheap.

Enemies very rarely have the same advantages that the player has, in any videogame. Imagine how tiring ME1 would be if  every enemy had a supply of health packs and sturdy shields, making even the lowest enemy as tough to kill as you.

[lazuli]

DocLasty wrote...

Enemies very rarely have the same advantages that the player has, in any videogame. Imagine how tiring ME1 would be if  every enemy had a supply of health packs and sturdy shields, making even the lowest enemy as tough to kill as you.

...not to mention the ability to levitate you and your squadmates endlessly. 

I would have probably given up on the series if that had been the case.

[Praetor Knight]

lazuli wrote...

I think regenerating health should remain in the game, perhaps with an even shorter period of downtime.  To make up for this, enemies should pressure Shepard and his/her squad more, forcing them to remain mobile to survive.

You're right.

Ultimately I'd rather not compromise the game experience. I think it's best to keep building from the ME2 template, and not get sidetracked with reinventing something that has already proven to work well.

[Fugiz]

Gatt9 wrote...

He's right.

ME2 is a great example, crouch and wait 5 seconds, and you're back to 100%. It seriously decreases the difficulty of a game.

Personally, I blame it on a key facet of today's Game Industry, the Disposable Game.

Games today are meant to be played, and beaten, inside of a few days to perhaps a week at most. I strongly suspect that this is intentional, in order to move you onto the next $60 expense as fast as possible. They don't want you doing anything that might extend the time you play a game, because if you're playing Game X for 4 weeks, then you're not spending more money.

I mean seriously, we're getting games with *maybe* 7-8 hours of gameplay in them today.

Regenerating health is a key factor in this with modern Shooters, because it encourages wanton disregard as you progress. Who cares if you charge into the room and lose 90% of your health, it'll come back in 5 seconds. Just charge through the game as fast as possible!

Of course, you lose tension, planning, strategy, resource management, and a whole host of other benefits.

But OTOH, you can go buy the next 8 hour game in a few days!

True. On the derelict reaper you can literally run through the whole level only having to fight twice, once before the second level and before you enter the core. Thanks be to checkpoints and health regen. The result is play time of fifteen to twenty minutes from a possible hour. 

[Bozorgmehr]

Gatt9 wrote...

Regenerating health in 5 seconds does nothing for gameplay.  The general theory is "Risk vs Reward",  there's no risk in a regenerating system,  you expend no resources,  risk nothing,  you just crouch for 5 seconds (Which is coincidently just about exactly how long the enemy will fire at you at one time),  then return to fighting.

1. Regenerating health only works if you manage to stay safe for a while. When you take too much risk, and/or when you're stuck in a bad position (with enemies nearby / flanking you) you're doomed. Regen is useless when you're taking fire - a health pack system always allows health regen and thus is far less focused on Risk vs Reward. Regen forces players to think about positioning themselves; health packs don't - if you have a couple packs you can do whatever you want to without consequences.

2. Regen forces players who make a mistake to look around for cover, if it is not available or not close enough - you're death (not so with health packs at hand).
 
3. Regen rewards good play with using less cover and killing enemies faster; a health pack system rewards cautious and cowardly playstyles.

4. Fighting bosses, like ME2's human reaper, require the use of cover to regen health / avoid taking damage - nobody can take it down on Insanity without cover. A health pack system will allow (assuming one saved some health packs) fighting the human reaper without cover, without bothering about Harby and his goons attacking you, i.e without taking any risks (and consequentially without rewards).

Like many of the games today,  designed to be ultra fast and to make sure that the player doesn't ever have to face any challenge,  because failing "Isn't fun" and Developers apparently think that players don't want to play any game that has even 1 second of "Not fun". 

Games using the regen system are usually a lot slower than games with health packs - simply because regen takes time, consuming a health pack doesn't. Fun is personal preference, but I doubt anyone playing ME2 on Insanity on their first ever playthrough will be "ultra fast" or has "lots of fun" - instead, it's likely going to be a tedious affair with lots of times forced into cover and getting killed.

The devs know players prefer playing games instead of having to look for medkits all day long and micro-managing their health system. The real difference between regen and healthpacks is about restrictions. A regen system always restict what one can do (health gone = game over); a health pack system is only resticted by how many health packs you have on you (health low > use medkit > rinse and repeat until you're through your supply).

So you have a regen system which enforces more and tighter restrictions on gameplay without having to bother about health management; versus a system with far less restrictions but with lots of health micro management. My preference lays with the former.

[Kronner]

I wouldn't mind if Insanity had auto-regeneration disabled and we'd have to use medkits. At least it would make the game more tactical and more difficult. I mean, it's called Insanity, after all.

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

I wouldn't mind if Insanity had auto-regeneration disabled and we'd have to use medkits. At least it would make the game more tactical and more difficult. I mean, it's called Insanity, after all.

For health - yes; for shields no.

Every class can get along fine without health regen, but some classes cannot play on Insanity without the shield regen. Vanguards and Sentinels won't have issues here b/c their signature powers ensure steady shield regen, Soldiers and Infilitrators will have to play extremely cautious - up to the point of shooting only while in ARush or Cloak (to reduce or completely ignore damage taken); playing Adept or Engineer will be impossible.

Only when all classes are equipped with a shield boosting / -restoring ability might do the trick.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Like many of the games today,  designed to be ultra fast and to make sure that the player doesn't ever have to face any challenge,  because failing "Isn't fun" and Developers apparently think that players don't want to play any game that has even 1 second of "Not fun".

Wait, Mass Effect 1 was a challenge? This is news to me.

I'm also curious as to why anyone should want to play a video game that is 'not fun'. Obviously this is an indicator that the developers screwed up in some fashion.

[Zem_]

This is also why I was a fan of the new limited ammo in ME2 vs the regenerating ammo of ME1.  It functions much the same way.  Not to mention encouraging me to make use of ALL of my abilities instead of relying on just one inexhaustible supply of ammo for my favorite gun. 

Ammo and health are different because when you're out of ammo, you switch to another weapon

If I'm out of ammo, I don't HAVE another weapon with ammo in it.  That's what being "out of ammo" means.  And with cooldowns the way they are in ME2, you're not fighting solely with powers (or if you are it's only because your sqadmates CAN'T run out of ammo and probably because YOU can regen your health and thus last as long as it takes).