526 réponses à ce sujet

[Argahawk]

Ok I'm not worry anymore about they ad thresholds about health regen, Mark Darrah just confirm something to me

"@BioMarkDarrah Would like to ask if normal difficulty will be hard enough so we still have to watch out to not die in fight ?"

Mark Darrah ‏@BioMarkDarrah
@Argahawk yes"

So if nothing change in this matter I'm happy

[Wulfram]

EntropicAngel wrote...

No no, don't misunderstand me. I don't hate them for making the concesstion, I think it does a fine job of compromising without losing their original intent. I just hope my choice to play on normal (because, presumably it gives me the "normal" attack and defense values, no buffs or debuffs) doesn't result in a...regen amount, however they're doing it, that's too high, considering that it wasn't intended to be there in the first place.

Eh, Normal is really "easy" because you want to avoid telling too many players they're sub-normal in ability.  It's like driving - everyone thinks they're above average at it.  The next difficulty up is usually the real normal

You could see this quite explicitly in Bioware's DnD based games.

[Ecmoose]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

jwalker wrote...


I wasn't talking about the simplicity or complexity of the coding involved to implement such a feature. 

Those who prefer no health regen, how they would be affected by the existance of an optional feature to have health regen ? 

They wouldn't feel superior to other players knowing they played the game the right way, and thus got special secret content that was just too hard for other players to see.

That may be a gross generalization but that's the general vibe I get from posters like Fast Jimmy and ecmoose, anyhow.

Thanks for the snap judgement, especially after I admitted I wouldn't be playing on the hardest difficulty. All I was trying to convey was that no health regen is not THE END OF THE WORLD and that by learning the game mechanics you wouldn't be experiencing significant down time. Pardon me for attempting to see the bright side of a design structure.

As far as the twitter update, that's a lot like the mechanic they use in the Tales games (Tales of Symphonie/Abyss/Vesperia) where after each battle you receive a percentage of health and mana (or TP in that series) and has been proven to work, so I've got no issue with it. It allows for leeway both to players who may not use optimal tactics and some wiggle room for trying new things out without totally punishing yourself.

[Thunderfox]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

jwalker wrote...


I wasn't talking about the simplicity or complexity of the coding involved to implement such a feature. 

Those who prefer no health regen, how they would be affected by the existance of an optional feature to have health regen ? 

They wouldn't feel superior to other players knowing they played the game the right way, and thus got special secret content that was just too hard for other players to see.

That may be a gross generalization but that's the general vibe I get from posters like Fast Jimmy and ecmoose, anyhow.

 Whats so elitist about wanting the game to be played, the way it was DESIGNED to be played? Do you have to like no health regen? No, of course not. But even asking for an optional toggle can come of as entitled and arrogant whining about wanting to play the game "your way" in some cases. That seems more elitist to me, acting like special snowflakes who deserve to have your whim catered to.

Modifié par ThunderfoxF, 02 septembre 2013 - 09:42 .

[cjones91]

ThunderfoxF wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

jwalker wrote...


I wasn't talking about the simplicity or complexity of the coding involved to implement such a feature. 

Those who prefer no health regen, how they would be affected by the existance of an optional feature to have health regen ? 

They wouldn't feel superior to other players knowing they played the game the right way, and thus got special secret content that was just too hard for other players to see.

That may be a gross generalization but that's the general vibe I get from posters like Fast Jimmy and ecmoose, anyhow.

 Whats so elitist about wanting the game to be played, the way it was DESIGNED to be played? Do you have to like no health regen? No, of course not. But even asking for an optional toggle can come of as entitled and arrogant whining about wanting to play the game "your way" in some cases.

You know I've gotten real sick of hearing "entitled"...in fact it has become one of my hated words.You sound just like the elitist Dark Souls and Splintercell:Blacklist players who hate it when someone asks for options to play the game how they want to play it.

And what the hell do you have against people who want to play a game in certain ways?Does it make you lose sleep whenever someone beats a game in a way that you did'nt?

Modifié par cjones91, 02 septembre 2013 - 09:45 .

[Volourn]

So, the anti rpg guys get their regen back. Oh well. -.2 rating points.


"DAO had health regen. And it was and remains a fantastic game"

I don't see the connection between the two. DA1 is a fantastic game IN SPITE of regen not because of. Just like BG2 is ana wesome  IN SPITE of Minsc not BECAUSE of that loser.

Modifié par Volourn, 02 septembre 2013 - 09:49 .

[cjones91]

Volourn wrote...

So, the anti rpg guys get their regen back. Oh well. -.2 rating points.

There are plenty of RPGS that have health regen.

[Volourn]

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

[Maverick827]

Volourn wrote...

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

How does taking 10 minutes to run from one point of the world, back to a safe location to instantly heal, and then running back to where you were previously make for a better RPG?

[cjones91]

Volourn wrote...

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

I don't see how those RPGS with health regen are worse, can you give me some examples?

[GameHunter]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Look, I dislike the idea of no health regen in open-world game. The basic idea is that you need to be able to find a way to sustain your character in the world.
All good open-world RPGs have such ways. Newer Elder Scrolls allows you to heal via magic, and magic power regenerates. Dragon's Dogma allows healing spells and Bitterblack Island brought in gear that allows full regeneration (such gear was there already, but it was way weaker). Tales series allows you to get vampiric/reaver abilities, aka get health from kills and combo attacks.
Gothic 3 and Risen games (speaking of recent ones) didn't have HP regen and that made them just bad. Gothic is tolerable (you can scramble around the world for healing plants and mushrooms), Risen was just unplayable.
I'd love to hear actual devs commenting on if there will be actually ways to make you health regenerate (get a specific enchanted gear, sword/staff that leeches life from enemies) or it's impossible.

Because ALL this reminds me of is Gothic 3 experience. Out of healing stuff. Go to forest, kill wolf, go back, sleep. Go kill next wolf, go back, sleep. God, how did I manage this chore? Admittedly later on you can make your HP and mana regenerate in Gothic 3. But it's a very late-game stuff.
Oh, and after DA2 I don't trust this developer to balance anything.
In my experience every large open world game that had no full health regen boiled down "now to find the quickest way to get HP regen/remove regen threshold, then I can start playing properly and enjoying".

Comments like that make me sad
Means people just want to faceroll stuff (which means putting face on keyboard rolling all over
it and winning hard ). Health regen is generally what I think spinned REAL hack'nslash type games
and it doesnt mean (button mashing) BUT means mowing down without thought ,most of the time
with 1 button and having mentality lets KILL kill KILL !!!
And Y IM NOT AWESOME ? question arrises if its not going easy.
And there is plenty of that kind of games made every day. I been there seen that it doesnt impress me
nor I find it enjoyably by any stretch of Imagination.
That arguement against is based of chore vs enjoyinment
Except technically you could say that any part of the game is chore or lets call it
routine :combat , crafting ,selling ,looting ,changing equipment.

The egzample under this line  in no way represents current or past nor future Bioware games experiences
and is just indicator of trend THAT is concerning me.
What is health regen gameplay in most contemporary games. (........ = sections combat looting ;selling) 

Intro ,cutscene ,combat ,looting ,combat , looting..... cutscene ........... cutscene ,dialouge options
selling ................... dialouge, quest complete ,selling ............ and etc ............. boss fight game over.
And thats it. If there wasnt sort of story in games you could go crazy.Games like that
are about quantity and not quality of content and about tempo of go go go forward ,dont stop
dont go back ,dont ask questions like why im doing this? or is there any other options ? .

But I digressed a little since treshhold of health is introduced. And if it can on highest difficulty
setting still replicate (Laidlaws comment on 3 wolves from PAX ) in my gameplay IM GAME.

[cjones91]

Maverick827 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

How does taking 10 minutes to run from one point of the world, back to a safe location to instantly heal, and then running back to where you were previously make for a better RPG?

It doesn't,in fact it makes it a game of tedium.

[AresKeith]

Volourn wrote...

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

And how are those games worse because of health regen?

[Volourn]

"How does taking 10 minutes to run from one point of the world, back to a safe location to instantly heal, and then running back to where you were previously make for a better RPG?"

Why would you do that? WHY!?!


"I don't see how those RPGS with health regen are worse, can you give me some examples? "

Because it hurts the rpgness. It's bogus and baloney and cowardly to have full blown health/mana regen. I have gretaly enjoyed games with regen but it is always IN SPITE OF not BECAUE of it.


DA is a better game than IWD but IWD is better in the aspect of how it handles health.

[Ecmoose]

cjones91 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

So, the anti rpg guys get their regen back. Oh well. -.2 rating points.

There are plenty of RPGS that have health regen.

And there are plenty that don't.

Both are tried and true designs for video games, but instead of waiting on more details, people saw some prealpha footage and heard a few lines from developers without specifics, and marched onto the forums up in arms about how now it's not the game THEY want. And their desires should out weigh everyone elses. That IS entitlement.

Obviously BW has taken the middle ground, and that's good for them because it'll please the most players, but demanding a device in a game and asking for one are entirely different. OP asked for one, did not demand, and explained why, which is the proper approach, but there were quite a few posts in this thread that stated that they deserved regenerative health. That is not cool. 

Discussion about why people think this can or can't work is one thing, calling people entitled, or elitist because they desire something from a game that you do not, is an entirely different scenario.

I like no health regen and will argue it's merits until I'm blue in the face, but I don't think anyone asking for a toggle is entitled. The people demanding one however are a different story.

Modifié par Ecmoose, 02 septembre 2013 - 10:01 .

[Ecmoose]

Maverick827 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

And, they're worse because of it. Your point?

How does taking 10 minutes to run from one point of the world, back to a safe location to instantly heal, and then running back to where you were previously make for a better RPG?

It doesn't, but if you learn the right approach and take minimal damage per encounter than you won't need to be constantly running back to heal. If you don't want to learn the mechanics and just stab everything you see, then running back to base is a consequence. On harder difficulties, that's going to make a significant difference, whereas on easier ones it'll be scaled back.

Last time I checked, failing to keep your party alive in DAO incured injuries, and failing to heal injuries required heading back to camp or a town to buy more kits. It's a mechanic you learned and followed. Just like every other game out there, you will learn to incorporate the mechanics. This is no different, it's just a different mechanic.

[Maverick827]

Volourn wrote...

Why would you do that? WHY!?!

Because the game requires me to.

Because it hurts the rpgness.

...

Ecmoose wrote...

It doesn't, but if you learn the right approach and take minimal damage per encounter than you won't need to be constantly running back to heal.

It's a mechanic of attrition.  Unless there are Blood Wound-like overpowered spells that let you kill things and not take damage, then you will be taking damage.  If you're taking damage, then you will need to heal.  To heal, you need to run back to your keep.  There's no way around it.

Imagine every time you wanted to heal in Skyrim you had to physically run back to Whiterun.  That would just be absurd.

[Bekkael]

Volourn wrote...

So, the anti rpg guys get their regen back. Oh well. -.2 rating points.


"DAO had health regen. And it was and remains a fantastic game"

I don't see the connection between the two. DA1 is a fantastic game IN SPITE of regen not because of. Just like BG2 is ana wesome  IN SPITE of Minsc not BECAUSE of that loser.

Since you quoted me, I am assuming your comment is directed at me. I stated my opinion of DA:O, and I did it in a nice and respectful way. I and every other person on this board is entitled to have our preferences, just the same as you are and these boards exist to discuss such things.

I don't think that makes me a loser, and I don't appreciate your use of such language. You are resorting to namecalling and personal attacks, which only shuts down discussion. I'm sorry if you can't have an intelligent discussion without that kind of juvenile behavior.

[Ecmoose]

Maverick827 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

Why would you do that? WHY!?!

Because the game requires me to.

Because it hurts the rpgness.

...

Ecmoose wrote...

It doesn't, but if you learn the right approach and take minimal damage per encounter than you won't need to be constantly running back to heal.

It's a mechanic of attrition.  Unless there are Blood Wound-like overpowered spells that let you kill things and not take damage, then you will be taking damage.  If you're taking damage, then you will need to heal.  To heal, you need to run back to your keep.  There's no way around it.

Imagine every time you wanted to heal in Skyrim you had to physically run back to Whiterun.  That would just be absurd.

That would be absurd, especially if you're taking the sort of damage that early game skyrim dished out.

However as you said, it's a mechanic of attrition, so if you play your cards right, you'll be taking minimal damage. Hell if you play it right you might even get it so that only your tank takes damage, thus freeing your mage or potions to only be used on them.

Because the mooks are designed around you not regenerating, they won't be causing the amount of damage we're used to seeing in DA games, that would be ridiculous. Playing smart will mitigate that damage even more. So planning your attacks and keeping your party alive becomes paramount. Do this correctly and your limited potions and spells will keep you moving until you're ready to go back to base. That's how it's worked in every other game with static health.

[Maverick827]

Ecmoose wrote...

Because the mooks are designed around you not regenerating, they won't be causing the amount of damage we're used to seeing in DA games, that would be ridiculous. Playing smart will mitigate that damage even more. So planning your attacks and keeping your party alive becomes paramount. Do this correctly and your limited potions and spells will keep you moving until you're ready to go back to base. That's how it's worked in every other game with static health.

Yes, on a per-dungeon basis things will probably be fine, because those "mooks" are designed to do a certain amount.  But I'm talking about exploring, chaining dungeons, and having to go back to your keep every single time.

But I'm still waiting for an answer as to why it even matters if it were toggleable?  Why are you against that?

[Lord Gremlin]

Ecmoose wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Volourn wrote...

Why would you do that? WHY!?!

Because the game requires me to.

Because it hurts the rpgness.

...

Ecmoose wrote...

It doesn't, but if you learn the right approach and take minimal damage per encounter than you won't need to be constantly running back to heal.

It's a mechanic of attrition.  Unless there are Blood Wound-like overpowered spells that let you kill things and not take damage, then you will be taking damage.  If you're taking damage, then you will need to heal.  To heal, you need to run back to your keep.  There's no way around it.

Imagine every time you wanted to heal in Skyrim you had to physically run back to Whiterun.  That would just be absurd.

That would be absurd, especially if you're taking the sort of damage that early game skyrim dished out.

However as you said, it's a mechanic of attrition, so if you play your cards right, you'll be taking minimal damage. Hell if you play it right you might even get it so that only your tank takes damage, thus freeing your mage or potions to only be used on them.

Because the mooks are designed around you not regenerating, they won't be causing the amount of damage we're used to seeing in DA games, that would be ridiculous. Playing smart will mitigate that damage even more. So planning your attacks and keeping your party alive becomes paramount. Do this correctly and your limited potions and spells will keep you moving until you're ready to go back to base. That's how it's worked in every other game with static health.

And the part in bold is another cause for worry. I instantly think about Tales of games, where you can get all kinds of regeneraing abilities, but give enemies a chance and they will kill you. But if you do well, you never need to go to the inn and rest.
And again, what you describe with limited potions etc. just doesn't work well in an open-world game with exploration. Maybe you have an example where no full regeneration and open world worked well together?
In Dragon's Dogma, Gothic 3, earlier Elder Scrolls, Risen it was just a thing of frustration. Maybe there's an open-world game where it worked, and I just don't know about it?

[Ecmoose]

Maverick827 wrote...

Ecmoose wrote...

Because the mooks are designed around you not regenerating, they won't be causing the amount of damage we're used to seeing in DA games, that would be ridiculous. Playing smart will mitigate that damage even more. So planning your attacks and keeping your party alive becomes paramount. Do this correctly and your limited potions and spells will keep you moving until you're ready to go back to base. That's how it's worked in every other game with static health.

Yes, on a per-dungeon basis things will probably be fine, because those "mooks" are designed to do a certain amount.  But I'm talking about exploring, chaining dungeons, and having to go back to your keep every single time.

But I'm still waiting for an answer as to why it even matters if it were toggleable?  Why are you against that?

I've already stated that I'm not wholly against it, just that I prefer it the way it is, and I think it's a bit early to assume that BW hasn't balanced out the non-regen to accomodate the type of exploring that you intend to do. Especially because they are on record saying that they want to encourage exploration (hence the dungeons and caves not being seperate areas but loaded and explorable from the overland. 

I'm assuming it'll be similar to MMO's where you can grind on mooks in your level range, and with the right rotation keep moving until you're ready to go back. In this way you can even chain dungeons with a competent party without ever having to go back to town. I'll admit I might be wrong because I have exactly the same info as you, so I'm assuming just as much, but my prior experience with RPG's that include static health is making me optimistic.

[Ecmoose]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

And the part in bold is another cause for worry. I instantly think about Tales of games, where you can get all kinds of regeneraing abilities, but give enemies a chance and they will kill you. But if you do well, you never need to go to the inn and rest.
And again, what you describe with limited potions etc. just doesn't work well in an open-world game with exploration. Maybe you have an example where no full regeneration and open world worked well together?
In Dragon's Dogma, Gothic 3, earlier Elder Scrolls, Risen it was just a thing of frustration. Maybe there's an open-world game where it worked, and I just don't know about it?

I'm also reminded of the Tales of games whenever I think about this structure but it doesn't give me cause to worry. Initially I was rubbish at the mechanics of that game, but as I practiced and changed my party tactics around, it became a lot easier to maintain momentum without turning around to buy gels. 

Some games don't have limited potions, but do limit your use per encounter. It's not a drastically different approach. It means that the decision to use that potion is an important one. We don't even know what the limit is though. On some DAO plays I had over 100 health poultices while exploring the world. That's definitely too many. But what is DAI's limit. 10? 20? 30?

We only know that there is a limit not what the limit is, until we do, speculating that it won't be enough is just conjecture.

Modifié par Ecmoose, 02 septembre 2013 - 10:51 .

[Loup Blanc]

Hrungr wrote...

JFYI - From Mark Darrah

There will be a threshold that you will heal back to after combat. This threshold will change at different difficulties. #DAI

Good news.

[Volourn]

"Because the game requires me to."

No, it doesn't. Unless you don't know how to play and just rush in with no strategy.


"I don't think that makes me a loser, and I don't appreciate your use of such language. You are resorting to namecalling and personal attacks, which only shuts down discussion. I'm sorry if you can't have an intelligent discussion without that kind of juvenile behavior. "

HUH!?! What are you talking about? I never called you a loser. I called Minsc a loser. Learn how to read.