Aller au contenu

Photo

The Guggenheim Effect: The case against regenerating health


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
217 réponses à ce sujet

#176
Zem_

Zem_
  • Members
  • 370 messages

Bozorgmehr wrote...
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).


Only if you build the worst possible medkit system, which it seems all your arguments against medkits rely on.

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.


Medkits don't have to heal instantly and allow you to spam them without restriction.  You can have medkits that do exactly what regen does now, heal you over a short time period such that you can't overcome incoming damage with spam healing and have a short cooldown so that you can't maintain a constant healing rate with stockpiled medkits .  The ONLY real difference between that and regen would be that regen is effectively like having an unlimited number of such medkits.

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.


Regen only has tighter restrictions when compared to this pathetic strawman of a medkit system you insist on beating up instead of comparing it to a sensibly designed medkit system.

#177
Bozorgmehr

Bozorgmehr
  • Members
  • 2 321 messages

Zem_ wrote...

Only if you build the worst possible medkit system, which it seems all your arguments against medkits rely on.


Can you provide a good or best possible medkit system coz I'm not aware those exist.

Medkits don't have to heal instantly and allow you to spam them without restriction.  You can have medkits that do exactly what regen does now, heal you over a short time period such that you can't overcome incoming damage with spam healing and have a short cooldown so that you can't maintain a constant healing rate with stockpiled medkits .  The ONLY real difference between that and regen would be that regen is effectively like having an unlimited number of such medkits.


And how is that different from a regen system? You still have to get into cover and wait for medkit-regen to finish - the only difference is you've to keep track of how many medkits you have; and you're likely have to reload frequently whenever you used some when you don't really needed to.

BTW; ME2 already has such a system - you can use medkits to restore shield/health, but it ain't instant - you will still die when you press the button at 50% health while under heavy fire.

Regen only has tighter restrictions when compared to this pathetic strawman of a medkit system you insist on beating up instead of comparing it to a sensibly designed medkit system.


Regen only removes the mindless business of collecting and herding health packs - which (imo) only reduce the fun by imposing some stupid micro-managing system. But if you can think of an example in which your sensible health pack system provides superior gameplay, I might reconsider.

#178
darklordpocky-san

darklordpocky-san
  • Members
  • 490 messages
I guess the real issue is this; either you regen health slowly after taking cover, or you use and item/healing tool (Like in Infamous, where you need electricity, and sometimes can't reach a power source in time) to do so. or you just die a la Witcher 2 (without preparations)

#179
Bocks

Bocks
  • Members
  • 694 messages
My thread was taken down. I was told to redirect my post somewhere else. Well, here it is:

While playing Mass Effect 2 and thinking about how the new health system followed the standard regenerating health system that so many games are employing nowadays, I thought of a possible compromise between the old healthpack system of yesterday and the new stand-still-to-have-your-arm-reappear-on-your-body-even-though-it-was-severed-brutally system.

How about using a fuel source for the regenerating health?

What do you mean by "Fuelled"?


Ever wonder how Shepard's health gets recovered so effectively in such a short period of time? I know there's an explanation somewhere, but I can't find it right now. Let's assume that Shepard's suit pumps Medi-Gel and Morphine when Shepard is hurt.

These medical supplies must come from somewhere. My idea is that Shepard is able to find or buy these Medi-Gel Packs and slap them into a compartment in his suit which then "draws" Medi-Gel or whatever from it. After a while, the Pack would run out of the substance that is regenerating Shepard's health, and Shepard cannot heal himself anymore unless he find some other health packs.

Manual, Automatic or Dual - Your choice in gameplay style!

Another important aspect of this system would be the choice of either a Manual Fuelled Health Regen System, an Auto Fuelled Health Regen System or a Dual Fuelled Health Regen System (what a mouthful!).

With the Manual System, players can decide to initiate the health regen system whenever they please, and can stop it at whichever point they deem good enough for them.

The Auto System works much like the current system, except that players now have to keep an eye out for Health Packs to fuel their health regen.

The Dual System is basically a compromise between the two previous systems. Health regen works like in ME2, but the player can also initiate health regen whenever they want.

(Perhaps it is better to scrap the dual system entirely and just add the ability to manually recharge health to the automatic system.)

Side Effects?


This System would not affect the shield/barrier recharge rate. Shield and barriers work on a completely different system, and they SHOULD regenerate.

Also, it is likely that implementing this system would mean scrapping Medi-Gel, as it pretty much would become redundant.

How is this a good idea?


1 - It supports the "Run and Gun" style that Bioware are so intent on expanding in ME3 according to the E3 demos we have seen for players who decide to use the Manual system.

2 - It's a good compromise for players who miss the old healthpack system and players who enjoy regenerative health.

3 - It furthers the idea of choices in gameplay and how you want to play.

I'm not going to say that I know how to make games better than Bioware, but I thought this system would be a decent compromise for old and new fans, and it would also be something that is somewhat original.

Modifié par Bocks, 18 juin 2011 - 03:45 .


#180
CroGamer002

CroGamer002
  • Members
  • 20 673 messages
I do miss health bars even among shooters.

#181
Garrison2009

Garrison2009
  • Members
  • 205 messages

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

If developers are going to use regen, they should either do it like Metal Gear or Ninja Gaiden. In MGS3 and Ninja Gaiden 2, you can regenerate your health up to a certain point, depending on how much damage you took in a certain amount of time, and what kind of damage.

In Metal Gear specifically, fall damage, knife wounds, and point blank gunshot wounds would cause a portion of the health bar to turn red immediately after the damage, and unless you use a medical item, your health would only regenerate up to the point where the red in the bar stops. You could wait it out, but it would take either hours of in-game time to clear up, or neglecting to play the game for several days. Non crucial damage would regenerate slowly (or at least in comparison to other games), and it was also affected by your stamina, but that's something else entirely.

Ninja Gaiden 2 had a similar concept. Each time you got hit and you lost health, part of the bar would turn purple. And after the fight, your health would regenerate up to that purple part. You could get in a fight and lose half of your health bar in a single hit, and a fourth of your bar will turn purple so after the fight, your health would regen back to the 3/4th mark. Once again, health items cleared this up.

This created urgency to not mess up, but enough leeway to know that if you got out of the remainder of the fight unscathed that even though you had no health items, you would be somewhat safe for the next encounter.

If you're going to add in health regen, doing it one of these two ways would probably be best.


I personally dont want to have to leave Mass Effect 3 up for two or three days to recharge my health... I think they should simply do it like Halo Combat Evolved. Shields regenerate but health is only regainable through the use of medigel.

Modifié par Garrison2009, 18 juin 2011 - 04:09 .


#182
Gatt9

Gatt9
  • Members
  • 1 748 messages

Il Divo wrote...

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. Posted Image

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.


Eh,  I guess I explained that point badly,  even rereading it it doesn't seem to get my point across well.

What I meant is...

Alot of genres,  most especially RPGs,  have been making huge concessions to a crowd of people not interested in their type of game.

Mechanics are removed wholesale,  not because there's something wrong with them,  but because someone deems them "Not fun",  because the mechanic either isn't inline with their preferred type of game or because they do not understand the mechanic.  Some examples are...

1.  Why does my guy miss?  He's standing right beside him?
2.  Why do I have to get health packs?  It's just stupid to have to look for them.
3.  Why is there a Charm/Intimidate skill,  why can't I just say what I want to say?
4.  Why is there loot?  Most of it is useless anyways.
5.  Why does a Spider have loot?  He can't carry it.
6. (In turn based systems) Why does my guy just stand there and do nothing while being hit?

Among many others,  to which the answer are...

1.  Because it's an abstraction of the two combatants dodging and twisting during a fight.
2.  Because it's makes even less sense to have someone who was just shot/stabbed with a sword to just suddenly be all better,  and because tieing it to a resource makes it a risk vs reward system,  whereas regenerating just makes everything 0 risk because you know you're not expending resources and no situtation is actually "Dangerous".
3.  Because you are not your character,  and it's about his skills not yours.
4.  Because it's a secondary progression of character development based upon an element of randomness to represent that the world is fluid and people in it actually carry and use things.
5.  Because it's an abstract representation of the concept of "Incidental loot",  meaning that it is what the Spider's earlier victims were carrying and it's lying around on the ground.
6.  Because one turn is technically simultaneous and it represents what each unit is doing.

These things are all deemed "Unfun" because the person either does not understand it,  or just doesn't like the mechanics because they prefer fast,  riskless gameplay,  without anything interfering with whacking the next mole.  Often times you'll find the person outright refuses to learn about the type of game they're demanding change,  such as one poster here who insisted he "Shouldn't have to read a book to play an RPG",  which is highly indicative of someone who doesn't like RPGs if they don't want to invest any time in learning their mechanics.

Over the years,  pretty much all of these things have become casualties of the genre,  because some group who wasn't terribly interested in the type of game deemed them "Unfun".  Not because there was a valid reason for the change,  like the switch from Armor class to Damage Resistance with armor over the years which represents much the same concept with less obfusication,  but because someone who isn't terribly interested in the gameplay type just didn't like it,  and the Dev's just want to sell one more copy instead of making great games.

This effect isn't limited to just RPGs,  FPS's now have auto-regeneration for much the same reasons,  and you can even find the effect outside of video games.  Magic the Gathering has had a number of strategies completely removed over the last few years because some group thought it was "Unfun".

"Unfun" is a big failing of the Gaming Industry,  "Unfun" isn't when a game isn't fun due to major problems,  but when some group of people who don't like the genre reference one or more of it's mechanics,  and developers decide to change their system to accomidate them in order to get more sales,  rather than a valid design reason.

Which eventually gets you Bethseda.  They make one game,  and one game only.  They put different art in that game every release.  They remove more features each release,  because it was "Unfun" and then the missing features cascade into making more stuff "Unfun" or now nonsensical,  until you eventually end up with a game that has no mechanics and is just about whacking moles.

#183
Praetor Knight

Praetor Knight
  • Members
  • 5 772 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Which eventually gets you Bethseda.  They make one game,  and one game only.  They put different art in that game every release.  They remove more features each release,  because it was "Unfun" and then the missing features cascade into making more stuff "Unfun" or now nonsensical,  until you eventually end up with a game that has no mechanics and is just about whacking moles.


Wait, how do I google for that game? =]


Seriously though, so you want turn based games? I figure you are referring to the Fallout series, I guess changes had to be made with the engine they use, dunno what to say about it being unfun though.

And how many games have used that same engine anyway? I gotta google that too. ^_^

#184
Bozorgmehr

Bozorgmehr
  • Members
  • 2 321 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Alot of genres,  most especially RPGs,  have been making huge concessions to a crowd of people not interested in their type of game.


Huh? Usually the crowds playing the game are reasonably interested in it.

Mechanics are removed wholesale,  not because there's something wrong with them,  but because someone deems them "Not fun",  because the mechanic either isn't inline with their preferred type of game or because they do not understand the mechanic.  Some examples are...

Q: Why do I have to get health packs?  It's just stupid to have to look for them.

A: Because it's makes even less sense to have someone who was just shot/stabbed with a sword to just suddenly be all better,  and because tieing it to a resource makes it a risk vs reward system,  whereas regenerating just makes everything 0 risk because you know you're not expending resources and no situtation is actually "Dangerous".


So pressing a button (and not having to bother getting somewhere safe to recuperate) does make 'sense' or 'more sense'? It looks like you prefer playing finders keepers instead of a cover based third person shooter-action game.

#185
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 768 messages

Gatt9 wrote...

Mechanics are removed wholesale,  not because there's something wrong with them,  but because someone deems them "Not fun",  because the mechanic either isn't inline with their preferred type of game or because they do not understand the mechanic.  Some examples are...

1.  Why does my guy miss?  He's standing right beside him?
2.  Why do I have to get health packs?  It's just stupid to have to look for them.
3.  Why is there a Charm/Intimidate skill,  why can't I just say what I want to say?
4.  Why is there loot?  Most of it is useless anyways.
5.  Why does a Spider have loot?  He can't carry it.
6. (In turn based systems) Why does my guy just stand there and do nothing while being hit?

Among many others,  to which the answer are...

1.  Because it's an abstraction of the two combatants dodging and twisting during a fight.
2.  Because it's makes even less sense to have someone who was just shot/stabbed with a sword to just suddenly be all better,  and because tieing it to a resource makes it a risk vs reward system,  whereas regenerating just makes everything 0 risk because you know you're not expending resources and no situtation is actually "Dangerous".
3.  Because you are not your character,  and it's about his skills not yours.
4.  Because it's a secondary progression of character development based upon an element of randomness to represent that the world is fluid and people in it actually carry and use things.
5.  Because it's an abstract representation of the concept of "Incidental loot",  meaning that it is what the Spider's earlier victims were carrying and it's lying around on the ground.
6.  Because one turn is technically simultaneous and it represents what each unit is doing.

These things are all deemed "Unfun" because the person either does not understand it,  or just doesn't like the mechanics because they prefer fast,  riskless gameplay,  without anything interfering with whacking the next mole.  Often times you'll find the person outright refuses to learn about the type of game they're demanding change,  such as one poster here who insisted he "Shouldn't have to read a book to play an RPG",  which is highly indicative of someone who doesn't like RPGs if they don't want to invest any time in learning their mechanics.


Actually, I understood it perfectly well and still thought it was terrible game design. It has little to do with someone 'not understanding' the mechanics. It has to do with developers attempting to cross genres and failing to do so appropriately. That's what leads to weak combat systems, as demonstrated by Mass Effect or Morrowind. Video games, unfortunately, are a visual form of art. RPGs are often known for attempting to apply some kind of 'realistic' limitations (weight limits, fatigue, etc). Yet, games like Morrowind couldn't provide sensible combat animations?
 
That's why your description of 'great games' is rather funny to me. Morrowind was not great because of its terrible attempts at simulating character skill in combat. It was great in spite of that. Morrowind was great due to its 'go anywhere, do anything' attitude, its insane amount of customization through enchantments, and the sheer size of the world it presented. The game's inability to translate its mechanics into combat is the developers' faults, not players. This was forgiven in the top-down view in games like BG and Planescape, not in the 3D era. So if developers really want to expand into real-time RPGs, perhaps they should take the time to create hit/miss animations. If they can't do it, then  they should stick with the turn-based style, as per KotOR.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who also much preferred Morrowind to Oblivion.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juin 2011 - 05:53 .


#186
Smeelia

Smeelia
  • Members
  • 421 messages

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Seriously though, so you want turn based games? I figure you are referring to the Fallout series, I guess changes had to be made with the engine they use, dunno what to say about it being unfun though.

Turn-based games can still be great, it's just that a lot of good uses for them have already been done and it's not as easy to be creative and make the best use of the system along with other elements (or maybe just that there aren't enough people willing to try, at least with big budgets).  Of course, there are already some strategy games and such so it's not like turn-based gameplay is dead anyway.

Il Divo wrote...

That's why your description of 'great games' is rather funny to me. Morrowind was not great because of its terrible attempts at simulating character skill in combat. It was great in spite of that. Morrowind was great due to its 'go anywhere, do anything' attitude, its insane amount of customization through enchantments, and the sheer size of the world it presented. The game's inability to translate its mechanics into combat is the developers' faults, not players. This was forgiven in the top-down view in games like BG and Planescape, not in the 3D era. So if developers really want to expand into real-time RPGs, perhaps they should take the time to create hit/miss animations. If they can't do it, then  they should stick with the turn-based style, as per KotOR.

Mind you, this is coming from someone who also much preferred Morrowind to Oblivion.

I agree, a game doesn't have to be perfect in all of it's mechanics to be a great game.  Also, just because it doesn't have to be great at everything doesn't mean it shouldn't try or that it can't manage to (which I think you were kind of implying at least).

Gatt9 wrote...

Which eventually gets you Bethseda.  They make one game,  and one game only.  They put different art in that game every release.  They remove more features each release,  because it was "Unfun" and then the missing features cascade into making more stuff "Unfun" or now nonsensical,  until you eventually end up with a game that has no mechanics and is just about whacking moles.

This sort of ties into the above, the different Bethesda games may have similar gameplay but the content (quests and so on) and world building are plenty to keep people coming back to try the new games.  One thing Bethesda did right was create a fairly simple form of gameplay that works, is mildly entertaining (or at least doesn't get in the way too much) and usually takes a while before players start to feel it's too repetitive.

Modifié par Smeelia, 18 juin 2011 - 06:14 .


#187
Praetor Knight

Praetor Knight
  • Members
  • 5 772 messages

Smeelia wrote...

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Seriously though, so you want turn based games? I figure you are referring to the Fallout series, I guess changes had to be made with the engine they use, dunno what to say about it being unfun though.


Turn-based games can still be great, it's just that a lot of good uses for them have already been done and it's not as easy to be creative and make the best use of the system along with other elements (or maybe just that there aren't enough people willing to try, at least with big budgets).  Of course, there are already some strategy games and such so it's not like turn-based gameplay is dead anyway.


True, but I assume Gatt9 was trying to use the Fallout series as a scapegoat example, since FO1 & 2 are turn-based; with FO3 and FO:NV not being turn-based.

And Gatt9 did exaggerate with mechanics being removed wholesale in games; and I think that Dev. time is a factor with some game mechanics not transitioning well for many game sequels that are using a different engine than the original, sometimes we can't seem to escape Murphy's Law! ^_^

And I've played turn-based games, but I've preferred games like the Total War series over RPG turn-based games, but that's just me :blush:.

#188
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 768 messages

Smeelia wrote...
I agree, a game doesn't have to be perfect in all of it's mechanics to be a great game.  Also, just because it doesn't have to be great at everything doesn't mean it shouldn't try or that it can't manage to (which I think you were kind of implying at least).


Exactly. Morrowind was a game with many flaws, which (imo) managed to rise up above them all. It had very detailed mechanics, which I enjoyed. But the developers decided to make the game 'real-time' and assumed it was acceptable for PCs to 'miss' their targets when visually-they had all but hit them. This was a clear weakness.

Praetor Shepard wrote...

And I've played turn-based games, but I've preferred games like the Total War series over RPG turn-based games, but that's just me Posted Image.


I actually just started reinstalling Rome: Total War about ten minutes ago. Great game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juin 2011 - 06:36 .


#189
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

Only if you build the worst possible medkit system, which it seems all your arguments against medkits rely on.


Can you provide a good or best possible medkit system coz I'm not aware those exist.

Fallout: Vegas and Dragon Age 2 both offered two different systems with immediate healing vs. regen. Even Left 4 Dead has an interesting look at different types of immediate healing.



Dragon Age 2 handled health in what I thought was a particularly good manner: there was little in-battle regeneration (and what there was was generally slow and small), but post-battle regeneration was rapid. With in-battle regeneration extremely limited and a special value in and of itself, 'health packs' were delegated to two different points: potions and spells. Spells were limited by mana (which slowly regenerated, and was mutually exclusive for other spells), but also by time: you could chug a potion, but had to wait awhile before you could do it again. While this led to some exceptionally humerous battles (the Arishok) in which a player would chug a potion and run around waiting for the chance to do another, as a whole it meant that in-battle a player could, yes, take advantage of a potion... but not to quickly, and only as many potions as the player bought/found. 

But with post-battle regeneration, however, potions weren't in any sense required... if you could finish a battle soon enough. And if you got injured (in-battle killed, but party victorious), you didn't have as much health/other stat until you healed via items or other abilities. Since the biggest qualm with a healthpack system is the trouble post-battle in finding more, post-battle regeneration but in-battle health packs worked well at keeping battles tense but post-battles less devoted to backtracking.





Fallout: Vegas approached healing from a number of perspectives, and while stimpack abuse is legendary (instant, and the only cost being how many you have), it wasn't the only part of the system. The food and other regen system were also of note.

Actual, permanent regeneration was rare: you either had to make the single most expensive purchase in the entire game (12,000 caps), or had to invest rare abilities for conditional regenerations: the Solar Power skill would only regenerate health if you were (a) outside, and (B) it was daytime. The Radiation-Regeneration trait would regenerate your health faster with higher radiation levels... but those levels came with other drawbacks.

The food system, however, was particularly notable. Also a 'limited regen' system, food items would give you X health a second for Y seconds. More plentiful food gave less: maybe 15 health over the course of five seconds. Some foods would focus on time or immediate gain: 3 h/s for 15 seconds, or 15 h/s for 3. Food wasn't rare, but it was an investement in and of itself: you could buy it, you could cook it, you could steal it. Since it stacked, you could also eat a lot at once, enough for relevant battle implications if you wanted.

Most notably, however, food had weight: nearly all equipment in Fallout does. You can only carry so much of anything. That, in addition to the number of food items, was a great limiting factor, since it left prioritization entirely up to the player: the difficulty isn't so much in finding food in general, but how much the player wants to carry.




The third game I bring up, L4D, is relevant because of the idea of temporary health items. L4D revolves around that every can carry two weapons and an Item: what that item is remains upto the player. There are bombs to kill zombies with, traps to delay them, but there are also two different health items for recovery: bandage kits and pills. Pills give an immediate 60-odd health that slowly decreases over the course of 30 seconds: bandage kits heal 80% of a player's lost health. On the face of it, the bandage kit is by far superior.

But bandage kits are rare, and pills are common. Pop some pills, and you have an immediate damage cussion... for a little while. At the end of the pill usage, you can only be as healthy as you were when you started... unless you took more damage.





The biggest drawback to a health-pack system without regen is having to hunt down health after a bad battle. The biggest drawback to a regen system of the CoD style is never needing to worry about health during a battle, in so much that hiding for five seconds fills it all. A hybrid system, however, could deal with both. Just take some of the factors we listed above, and mix them with the Halo Reach health/shield departure.


Let's take the DA2 post-battle regen setup: health regeneration during a battle (as opposed to shields) is a precious thing: either a special power, upgrade, or class/race ability. While shield recovery might be big, health recovery can't be relied upon on its own. After a battle, however, health is more or less completely recovered over the next, say, ten seconds. Unless battles are literally back to back, Shepard is back to health by the next fight.

Follow that with medigel as the primary in-battle healer. You only have a certain amount of it. You start a level topped out, but then only occassionally find more. If you're in trouble in a battle, you can either wait for shields, or pad yourself with a health pack if your health worries you. Since your health will regenerate after the battle, if you survive it, using the health pack becomes a question of 'do I need it this battle', as opposed to having to chug it regardless.


Finish this up with some temporary shield buffs, in the sense of temporary health. It could be a power: biotic barrier, fortification, overcharge. Or it could be a special item/equipment shepard could hold at the cost of another. Boost shields by X, but with gradual decay over Y time. It doesn't help your health at the end... but it may help you pull through the battle.

#190
Epic777

Epic777
  • Members
  • 1 268 messages

Il Divo wrote...

Smeelia wrote...
I agree, a game doesn't have to be perfect in all of it's mechanics to be a great game.  Also, just because it doesn't have to be great at everything doesn't mean it shouldn't try or that it can't manage to (which I think you were kind of implying at least).


Exactly. Morrowind was a game with many flaws, which (imo) managed to rise up above them all. It had very detailed mechanics, which I enjoyed. But the developers decided to make the game 'real-time' and assumed it was acceptable for PCs to 'miss' their targets when visually-they had all but hit them. This was a clear weakness.

Praetor Shepard wrote...

And I've played turn-based games, but I've preferred games like the Total War series over RPG turn-based games, but that's just me Posted Image.


I actually just started reinstalling Rome: Total War about ten minutes ago. Great game.


Morrowind, I remember how you could abuse the Enchant system and craft weapons better than any artifact.

#191
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages
Eh, I disagree with the blogger.

The regenerating system just causes less frustration and keeps the player focused on their objective, not hunting med kits around the map, eventually getting lost.

It is either that, or having to manage a limited amount of med kits which disrupt the action and can too become irritating. Their disruption may not seem like much, but try remembering how you had to run away from your enemy, find a momentarily safe place and watch through the healing animation. That happens in several RPGs.

And before you say that the old system requires more skill, no, just no.

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


#192
Il Divo

Il Divo
  • Members
  • 9 768 messages

Epic777 wrote...

Morrowind, I remember how you could abuse the Enchant system and craft weapons better than any artifact.


Not just enchanting. Alchemy and spell-making made it so that your character could boost his attributes to insane levels. If you raised your strength too high (+ 400 I think), it actually became possible for your character to instantly break whatever weapon he was carrying at the time.

#193
Bozorgmehr

Bozorgmehr
  • Members
  • 2 321 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Let's take the DA2 post-battle regen setup: health regeneration during a battle (as opposed to shields) is a precious thing: either a special power, upgrade, or class/race ability. While shield recovery might be big, health recovery can't be relied upon on its own. After a battle, however, health is more or less completely recovered over the next, say, ten seconds. Unless battles are literally back to back, Shepard is back to health by the next fight.

Follow that with medigel as the primary in-battle healer. You only have a certain amount of it. You start a level topped out, but then only occassionally find more. If you're in trouble in a battle, you can either wait for shields, or pad yourself with a health pack if your health worries you. Since your health will regenerate after the battle, if you survive it, using the health pack becomes a question of 'do I need it this battle', as opposed to having to chug it regardless.

Finish this up with some temporary shield buffs, in the sense of temporary health. It could be a power: biotic barrier, fortification, overcharge. Or it could be a special item/equipment shepard could hold at the cost of another. Boost shields by X, but with gradual decay over Y time. It doesn't help your health at the end... but it may help you pull through the battle.


I'm ok with something like this, but most of it is already possible in ME2. I don't have a problem with using a medkit occasionally; but stopping shield regen will ruin most of the fun for me. I want to focus my attention on the combat, not micro-managing Shep's condition all the time ;)

@ Il Divo ; be sure to check the Rome TW mod section. The original version is fun, but there are a couple mods around taking things to a whole new level!

#194
onebelo

onebelo
  • Members
  • 7 messages
they should change it to find a balance somewhere with health packs and regeneration.

whats good about popping your head up, shooting an enemy and getting shot 5 times yourself, ducking again and waiting 5 seconds, rinse and repeat all game. and you can do this because your enemies have health bars while you just regen

#195
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

onebelo wrote...

they should change it to find a balance somewhere with health packs and regeneration.


I am afraid that that is impossible. Both systems represent very different, if not opposite, directions and philosophies.

To implement one of them, even partially, would make the other's role obsolete.

#196
Admoniter

Admoniter
  • Members
  • 493 messages
I disagree with the full health regen system is superior crowd. If anything its inclusion and the popularity of it have made most multiplayer games boring, repetetive, devoid of depth and samey. I miss games like Quake where map control was important not just for the sake of map control but because of the item in the area health/armor/weapons/power ups all of these things. The removal of these thing has more or less completely trivialized map control which just leads to running around the map like an idiot being a feasible playstyle. Halo has surprisingly left weapons on its maps and with the most recent release returned to actually having health packs. And while these are both multiplayer fpses I don't see why things like health packs can't be as important in a single player game.

I also despise the soggy paper mache health that players get as a result of the regen system. Where one wayward burst will pop your shields and another two lead to you reloading. I'm not asking for Shep to shake off several rockets to the face but come on, at the very least his shields should be capable of withstanding twice the punishment of his health and currently the game does no play like that.

Which brings me to the next point,

Dean_the_Young wrote...
*snip
The biggest drawback to a health-pack system without regen is having to hunt down health after a bad battle. The biggest drawback to a regen system of the CoD style is never needing to worry about health during a battle, in so much that hiding for five seconds fills it all. A hybrid system, however, could deal with both. Just take some of the factors we listed above, and mix them with the Halo Reach health/shield departure.

This guy he gets it; semi rebounding health is the way to go. Provides enough regen so that you aren't walking around one gentle breeze away from death but will leave you at a disadvantage if you get sloppy and lose too much health which would require a health pack to fix.

And before someone says but I don't want to scour the map for health packs, well then the answer is simple have proper health pack placement in levels. Or have the player start off with a reserve and make them a rare item to find on the field. As with many other things just because ME1 didn't do health packs right doesn't mean that the system is useless and a waste of time.

#197
Admoniter

Admoniter
  • Members
  • 493 messages

Phaedon wrote...

onebelo wrote...

they should change it to find a balance somewhere with health packs and regeneration.


I am afraid that that is impossible. Both systems represent very different, if not opposite, directions and philosophies.

To implement one of them, even partially, would make the other's role obsolete.


Both Halo: Reach and Resistance seem to have done pretty well with it. Infact IMO they have struck a good balance between the two systems.

Modifié par Admoniter, 18 juin 2011 - 07:55 .


#198
onebelo

onebelo
  • Members
  • 7 messages

Phaedon wrote...

onebelo wrote...

they should change it to find a balance somewhere with health packs and regeneration.


I am afraid that that is impossible. Both systems represent very different, if not opposite, directions and philosophies.

To implement one of them, even partially, would make the other's role obsolete.


not really. the problem with regen is that you regen within 5 seconds, so instead of playing a tactical game you just run wherever you like and take a bunch of damage, hide, and your back to full strength again. the good thing is that it makes game flow better as there it doesnt force the player to check every corner and open every box.

the problem with med kits is that stopping and looking around for a random pack of health detracts from gameplay. the good thing is that you have plan ahead, you cant just run around like a mad man because if you are hit, then that damage stays with you

so take the good from both.... damage stays with you in battle so you have to play tactically, but not be forced to run around and search boxes for health packs. now the question is how do you implement those two things into a fully working health system?

#199
Phaedon

Phaedon
  • Members
  • 8 617 messages

Admoniter wrote...

I disagree with the full health regen system is superior crowd. If anything its inclusion and the popularity of it have made most multiplayer games boring, repetetive, devoid of depth and samey. I miss games like Quake where map control was important not just for the sake of map control but because of the item in the area health/armor/weapons/power ups all of these things. The removal of these thing has more or less completely trivialized map control which just leads to running around the map like an idiot being a feasible playstyle. Halo has surprisingly left weapons on its maps and with the most recent release returned to actually having health packs. And while these are both multiplayer fpses I don't see why things like health packs can't be as important in a single player game.

a) Med kits add depth? How.
B) You are thinking about MP-only games too much. You do have a clear location objective in the ME games.
c) Med kits can and have worked in SP games, they just take too much from the action.

I also despise the soggy paper mache health that players get as a result of the regen system. Where one wayward burst will pop your shields and another two lead to you reloading. I'm not asking for Shep to shake off several rockets to the face but come on, at the very least his shields should be capable of withstanding twice the punishment of his health and currently the game does no play like that.

Eh, I would probably associate the exact opposite to this system...

Which brings me to the next point,
This guy he gets it; semi rebounding health is the way to go. Provides enough regen so that you aren't walking around one gentle breeze away from death but will leave you at a disadvantage if you get sloppy and lose too much health which would require a health pack to fix.

And before someone says but I don't want to scour the map for health packs, well then the answer is simple have proper health pack placement in levels. Or have the player start off with a reserve and make them a rare item to find on the field. As with many other things just because ME1 didn't do health packs right doesn't mean that the system is useless and a waste of time.

Yeah, you get a clear no from me. To do that you essentially overpopulate the map with health maps, and while this might have been okay originally, it doesn't work with regen as well. Also, with regeneration never stops. Therefore, you can just wait in a corner for 2 minutes until your HP goes to 100%. This could be a game-breaking exploit.

The only way I would accept health packs is as loot and with inventory management, not picking them up and using them on the spot. And I have already explained why I dislike that system.

It may have worked well for ME1, it could have possibly worked OK for ME2, but ME3, with the intense events, and the moment-to-moment gameplay? Nah, I doubt that that would work.

#200
Smeelia

Smeelia
  • Members
  • 421 messages
The Witcher 2 has an interesting system where you regenerate more out of combat but not much in combat (0 by default) and can use potions to buff your abilities (like bonus regeneration in combat).  The potions you can use are restricted by a "toxicity" level so you can only have a few active at any time and you can't just drink a health potion in battle if you get beat up.  The toxicity system affects all potions so in each battle you're choosing between different benefits (for example, night vision for fighting in caves, bonus damage, stronger magic and so on) and can't have everything (some potions also have penalties, so you can drink another potion to counter the penalty or live with it and get a different benefit instead).  It's not a perfect system (you can't drink potions at all during combat, only by meditating before battle, I think the original game had the toxicity but not the meditation restriction) but it works reasonably well and could be built on.