526 réponses à ce sujet

[AshenSugar]

What I'm wanting (indeed praying) to avoid is something akin to the following:

Enter dungeon.

Be attacked by a dozen brutal poisonous spiders who suddenly swing down from the ceiling without warning.

Barely survive the fights, and limp forward with party members at around 12% health.

Use up your three health poultices getting three key members to 60% health.

Turn a corner, and be attacked by another 12 brutal poison spiders.

Die horribly.

Reload.

Die.

Reload.

Die.

Reload.

Run from the cave, and take a ten minute run through the wilderness, praying there are no random enemies waiting that you didn't spot originally.

Visit the nearest merchant, and wait another 10 minutes for his poultice cooldown to reset which allows you to buy three more poultices.

Heal three key members up to around 80%.

Run for ten minutes back to the cave, praying you don't meet enemies you originally missed.

Enter the cave.

Turn the corner, and engage the 12 brutal poison spiders.

Limp onward with party down to around 8% health.

Turn the next corner, be attacked by 16 vicious bandits.

Die horribly.

Reload.

Die.

Reload.

Run from cave, and take a ten minute run back to the nearest camp, praying you don't bump into any enemies you originally missed......


etc.

etc.

etc.

.......

If that was tedious to read, imagine how tedious it would be to experience?

[Ecmoose]

And in DAO and DA2 a single encounter could brutalize you like that. But in a system based around you not entering every encounter at full health, you're less likely to be completely wiped out by enemies unless they are significantly higher level than you. Just like every other video game with enemies that don't scale to your level.

Also, seeing as they said there is a threshold of healing, and they've also said that you won't heal if you are already over that threshold, it means that you won't be stuck at 12% health (except maybe on harder difficulties). The way it sounds is more like, on easy you won't heal above 90%, 70% on Normal, 50% on Hard, 30% on Nightmare, or something like that.

You're also assuming you can only hold 3 potions. Why? We have no idea what the number will be.

How much health you lose shouldn't be an indicator of how hard the encounter was. Something can be hard to kill but also be unable to kill you. There are tons of different ways to balance this system and there are decades of evidence to prove it.

Modifié par Ecmoose, 05 septembre 2013 - 05:59 .

[Taura-Tierno]

You speak so much truth, Ecmoose.

I love heavily story- and dialogue-based games. I also love games that have great and tactically challenging combat. There is no reason why the two cannot be combined.

If you (general you) just want to play for the story, why not play on the easiest difficulty setting and waltz through most combat encounters with little or no issues at all? I think Bioware is well aware that a lot of people want that, so I imagine that, as in previous games, the easiest setting really will be very easy.

And yes, about the potions. The way it sounded in the gameplay video, was that they don't want you to be able to put a mage on making a thousand potions for you to carry around. Or sell, for infinite money.

[mupp3tz]

Ecmoose wrote...
Also, seeing as they said there is a threshold of healing, and they've also said that you won't heal if you are already over that threshold, it means that you won't be stuck at 12% health (except maybe on harder difficulties). The way it sounds is more like, on easy you won't heal above 90%, 70% on Normal, 50% on Hard, 30% on Nightmare, or something like that.

I took the healing threshold as one that you get naturally or automatically after battles, outside of additional potions, spells, regen equipment etc. If we make the assumption that health is divided into.. I don't know, 5 bars. So if I finish at 55% health, then I would regain up to 60-80% on Easy mode for example. And then I can also use a potion to cap off the remainder.

The way you word it sounds like I can only ever heal up to to X% including potions, spells, regen. equipment in the above scenario. That wouldn't make it a compromise at all.. which, from my understanding, is what they were trying to do. In fact, that would be worse than no regen. That doesn't make sense at all.

Or am I just completely misunderstanding you?

EDIT: Ah, okay after rereading a few times. I think I understand now. I was under the impression that the threshold meant something like: Easy mode would always reheal up to 2 bars, Normal is 1 bar, Hard is 1/2 or none, etc. regardless of where you end up health wise. Compared to what you are saying which (I think?) means that Easy will always heal up to 90%.. whether I am at 10% or 85%. BUT I'm still unclear on whether you're saying that there are absolute caps.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 05 septembre 2013 - 07:13 .

[Realmzmaster]

Let's see
1. Prepare for questing. Make sure all spells are ready and sufficient number of potions exist.

2. Enter Dungeon

3. Be attacked by a dozen brutal poisonous spiders who suddenly swing down from the ceiling without warning.

4. Pause the action.

5. Visualize the battlefield.

6.Note location of the enemy.

7. Check the layout of the environment. (Are there collapsible objects?)

8. Plan attack and tactics strategy for each companion.

9. Position PC and companion for maximum effect.

10. Beat the enemy with better than 80% health left.

11. Continue exploring the cave.

11a.Optional: Quaff a potion or cast a spell to heal to 100%.

12. Ready for next encounter in cave.

13. Next encounter:

14. Goto step 4

Proper preparation and planning negate need to run back to keep.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 05 septembre 2013 - 10:03 .

[Ecmoose]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...


EDIT: Ah, okay after rereading a few times. I think I understand now. I was under the impression that the threshold meant something like: Easy mode would always reheal up to 2 bars, Normal is 1 bar, Hard is 1/2 or none, etc. regardless of where you end up health wise. Compared to what you are saying which (I think?) means that Easy will always heal up to 90%.. whether I am at 10% or 85%. BUT I'm still unclear on whether you're saying that there are absolute caps.

There was a tweet (of course I can't find it now) that explained you would not heal after battle if your health was over the threshold. So I can only assume that there would be absolute caps. I could be wrong, but I don't see how that would work otherwise.

[mupp3tz]

Ecmoose wrote...
There was a tweet (of course I can't find it now) that explained you would not heal after battle if your health was over the threshold. So I can only assume that there would be absolute caps. I could be wrong, but I don't see how that would work otherwise.

Thanks for clarification! 

Perhaps I am just being bad with my words. Okay, let me rephrase: The absolute "freebie" cap would be dictated by difficulty level - i.e. Easy regenerates up to 90%.. but it IS possible to get to 100% using items, yes?

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 05 septembre 2013 - 08:41 .

[Ecmoose]

Yeah I can't imagine they wouldn't let you get to 100% using items. That actually would be a major design flaw.

[cJohnOne]

@ashensugar That wasn't a very realistic example but it was funny. Was the point that it was going to be tedious?

[Trafalgar-Law]

Taura-Tierno wrote...

Why are you saying that there are only 3  possible options?[ That is not the case. There could be other things they've thought of.

If there are other options, you are welcome to tell us what these other options are so that they may be discussed and analyzed. As of now though, those are logically the only ways to address the elimination of health regen. Players can either fight less challenging enemies, backtrack or be given an equivalent health regen that makes the whole change redundant.

Or there could be any number of combinations of ideas

Even a combination of those ideas is bad for reasons already stated. All in all, the system wasn't broken in the first place. Leave it the way it is. The mere fact that Bioware has already changed its mind (to an extent) by allowing a certain degree of health regen is quite telling.

The real issue isn't if there will be backtracking, it's if the backtracking will get intolerable.

The general consensus amongst gamers is that it is.

There is already some backtracking in virtually every game that offers a lot of open world exploration or large dungeons or similat things.

And those games (i.e. Skyrim) address backtracking by allowing players to fast travel. Of course, were BW to permit fasttraveling as a means of dealing with the lack of health regen, that'd fall under option 3, which as I've pointed out, makes the removal of health regen redundant. Why even bother removing health regen if I have a guarenteed cost-free means of  healing?

You're just talking like they've built the entire combat- health- and magic system for the purpose of having automatic health regen, and then just scrapping that particular feature.

Not at all. I've addressed the effects of attempting to "rebalance" the system, hence the three options I've pointed out.

For instance, so that you will be able to beat one "dungeon" without having to backtrack for a tedious amount of time in order to heal. That is, that the game will not expect you to be at full health every time you enter combat and that it will be balanced around that fact.

And the only way to balance around the fact that you don't have full health is that the enemies are even weaker (option 1). In an effort to make the game more challenging, the developers wind up making the game less challenging, per your own admission.

Modifié par Trafalgar-Law, 05 septembre 2013 - 10:27 .

[Trafalgar-Law]

Sidney wrote...

Provi-dance wrote...

As for how to solve healing spells making no health regen pointless: make healing spells PER REST resources. You can cast a particular healing spell let's say 5 times and then it goes on cooldown until you rest.
It would make healing spells precious, yes.

Why? Why is 5 or 3 or 7 the magic # of fights you can have before resting? What is resting other than a fake time wasting mechanism to do one thing...heal.

This really comes down to one thing - why are you penalizing people for needing to heal? In a game with dungeon crawls through walls of mooks you are going to get hit. You are going to need to heal. Healing is not a challenge (as in requiring any thought) it is a time suck. It isn't about being good or bad at combat because I'm pretty good at combat and I'll take a pretty bad beating from time to time.

Don't make me take time BETWEEN fights do things. If you want the game to be a bigger challenge make it a challenge where it is fun - IN the combat. Give me smarter foes, give me foes that run a decent combined arms fight...something but making me heal or go to camp to make it "tough" is lazy.

100% agree.

To add, instead of punishing us for losing health (which is inevitable unless you exploit the game mechanics and play the game in a way not intended by the devs), why not instead just punish us for getting party members killed? Hell, they ALREADY have this system. Frankly, it's a damn good system. Party members get injuries, thus have less health and lower stats. The amount of injuries you have increases the amount of health/stats you lose.

If they wanna lower the amount of injury kits you can have, I'm all in favor of that. There are reasonable ways to keep your party members from dying. There aren't reasonable ways to keep your party members from losing health (especially your tank). Especially if they're still gonna have assassins and blood mages who can one-shot your entire party.

[Maverick827]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Proper preparation and planning negate need to run back to keep.

I think the better word would be "mitigate" the need to run back.  "Negate" would imply you would never have to, which is not going to be the case.  Eventually, while exploring, your health will be whittled down.  Eventually you will have to go back to a keep to heal.  Will this be balanced perfectly, to the point where most people would be heading back to sell items and whatnot anyway?  Maybe.  But there's a chance that it won't be, and some of us see that as an unnecessary gamble, especially when nothing was wrong with the way Origins worked.

We've already been told that easier settings will turn on health regeneration.  I personally still hope that they will separate this from the difficulty setting and make it it's own checkbox.  We have a year to go, so there's still time for those of us who want to play Dragon Age and not Dark Souls to plead our cases, so I'm hopeful.  But even if not, the option will be there to turn the difficulty down whenever we want to regenerate - say, when running from one point of interest to another - but don't want it to affect combat.  That's better than nothing.

There's also hope for some other mechanics to circumvent the lack of health regen.  Maybe you can craft potions anywhere at any time, and while you can only carry a certain amount, perhaps you can carry as much Elfroot as you want.  Maybe you can set up a temporary camp in the world (not in dungeons) that you can rest at.  There are certainly a lot of possibilities that will make this change not as world-ending as it seems on the surface.  Some of us are just worried that there's even a risk in the first place.

To put things in perspective: I don't think it's out of line to say that most people who support the removal of health regen are of the "hardcore" or "old school" camp, and thus are those people who typically oppose multiplayer in their single player games.  Imagine, now, that during the presentation Mike Laidlaw said something like "... and your keeps will be affected by how well you do in the online multiplayer portion of the game" and then left it at that.  I think we both know you would go absolutely bananas.

We, the people who wouldn't be phased by (or would even enjoy) such a thing would be trying to explain to you how maybe it won't be that bad.  Maybe it will just be cosmetic; more nameless NPCs will populate your town depending on how well you did online.  Maybe it will just be ambient dialog about how the war effort is going.  Again, I think we both know you would (and will, if such a thing is actually announced in the future) do two things regardless of these suggestions: ask to be able to turn it off, and ask why they're even doing it in the first place.  Because to you, it's a chance that a feature that you find abhorrent will interfere with your enjoyment of the game, a chance that wasn't there before.  Regardless of the "what ifs" and "maybes" we throw at you, you'd still be upset because there's still a chance.

That's what's going on here, only with the positions reversed.  Could this amount to nothing overly-punishing (what we call "tedious") for those us who don't like such things?  Yes.  But until the system is explicitely explained (not just bits and pieces from tweets), or perhaps even until we've even seen it with our own eyes, and played through the game without it negatively affecting us even once, the possibility is still there.

[Trafalgar-Law]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Let's see
1. Prepare for questing. Make sure all spells are ready and sufficient number of potions exist.

2. Enter Dungeon

3. Be attacked by a dozen brutal poisonous spiders who suddenly swing down from the ceiling without warning.

4. Pause the action.

5. Visualize the battlefield.

6. Notice that one of your party members has already been killed or is in a position where they are going to be killed the instant you unpause the game (i.e. they've been webbed and are surrounded).

7. Realize that your party is not leveled high enough due to the decision to remove enemy scaling

8.Note location of the enemy.

9. Check the layout of the environment. (Are there collapsible objects?)

8. Plan attack and tactics strategy for each companion.

9. Position PC and companion for maximum effect.

10. Unpause the game

11. Realize within 10 seconds that your strategies are useless since you had no way to account for enemy levels

12. Watch your party  members get ripped apart.

13. Ragequit.

14. Come back 30 minutes later after venting

15. Ragequit again after realizing that you didn't save before that battle and that you have to repeat 60 minutes of gameplay.

16. Come back after 24 hours of venting

17. Head towards a different cave.

18. Repeat steps 1-2.

19. Watch your whole party lose a massive chunk of health and acquire injuries after falling into a trap.

20. Express frustration over having to waste resources recovering your health either through backtracking or consuming items

21. Continue traveling into the cave.

22. Get ambushed by a group of mercenaries.

23. Repeat steps 4-5.

24.  Repeat steps 8-10.

25. Watch your mage get one shotted by an enemy assassin (or equally overpowered foe) appearing out of nowhere and who the developers neglected to create a consistent means of dealing with.

26. Pause the game again to factor enemy assassin into strategy.

27. Unpause and survive the encounter after losing another party member and expending your resources.

28.  Contemplate having to backtrack for 15 minutes due to insuffienct resources and a dead mage.

29. Ragequit.

30. Complain on the DAI forums.

Fix'd!

[Trafalgar-Law]

Maverick827 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Proper preparation and planning negate need to run back to keep.

There's also hope for some other mechanics to circumvent the lack of health regen.  Maybe you can craft potions anywhere at any time, and while you can only carry a certain amount, perhaps you can carry as much Elfroot as you want.  Maybe you can set up a temporary camp in the world (not in dungeons) that you can rest at.  There are certainly a lot of possibilities that will make this change not as world-ending as it seems on the surface.  Some of us are just worried that there's even a risk in the first place.

The problem with that is that it defeats the purpose of elimianting health regen entirely. If they're still going to say "Guys guys, it's still easy to heal, so you don't have to backtrack!", the question becomes "What's the point of eliminating health regen in the first place if it's easy to avert?"

[The Hierophant]

Trafalgar-Law wrote...

*snip*

Fix'd? That edit looks something a casual player (game industry version) trying out Nightmare mode with subpar character builds, and who fails to see their folly until someone points it out to them, would experience.

[Dreymar]

I feel like if they go this route, it's because some people wanted this game to be a little bit more like the Witcher series (some story elements are understandable... but gameplay, not so much). So if they are trying to go this direction, I don't see the developers not including a health regeneration potion that you can craft to help compensate. Does that fix the problem though...No.

[Trafalgar-Law]

The Hierophant wrote...

Trafalgar-Law wrote...

*snip*

Fix'd? That edit looks something a casual player (game industry version) trying out Nightmare mode with subpar character builds, and who fails to see their folly until someone points it out to them, would experience.

And I assume that you'd show the meager "casual player" the error of his ways by telling him about a "build" that somehow enables him to ward off ambushing enemies well beyond his level, avert traps without bringing along a party member with a sufficient level of trap detection, and defeat deliberately overpowered foes with an abilitiy designed to take out massive or all chunks of health. I also assume you'd be able to put this silly "casual player" in his place without having the benefit of having played the game multiple times yourself, having learned where all the traps were, having gotten your party killed enough times to learn the system in and out and without having frequented these forums enough to learn about ways to exploit the game mechanics with "builds" other people have thought of. Very impressive.

[wolfhowwl]

If the player can't handle the gameplay they are free to turn down the difficulty level.

Previous DA games had an easy or "casual" difficulty level and I doubt this one will be different.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 05 septembre 2013 - 11:58 .

[Maverick827]

Trafalgar-Law wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Proper preparation and planning negate need to run back to keep.

There's also hope for some other mechanics to circumvent the lack of health regen.  Maybe you can craft potions anywhere at any time, and while you can only carry a certain amount, perhaps you can carry as much Elfroot as you want.  Maybe you can set up a temporary camp in the world (not in dungeons) that you can rest at.  There are certainly a lot of possibilities that will make this change not as world-ending as it seems on the surface.  Some of us are just worried that there's even a risk in the first place.

The problem with that is that it defeats the purpose of elimianting health regen entirely. If they're still going to say "Guys guys, it's still easy to heal, so you don't have to backtrack!", the question becomes "What's the point of eliminating health regen in the first place if it's easy to avert?"

For me, if it turned out to be easily circumvented, the point would be that the option to play like that (no health regen) is there if you wanted to.  Obviously it's going to be more than that, because they advertised it specificially during the demo (e.g., they think harshness will be a selling point for the game like it is for Dark Souls), but I'd rather have the lack of health regen be made redundant by having ways around it than have no way around it at all.

[The Hierophant]

I guess what's stated inbetween the parenthesis went over your head Trafalgar-Law?

[cJohnOne]

Because health regeneration isn't realistic. Why would you be able to heal automatically after every battle in real life.. Healing by magic spell makes sense within the game world.

I was mentioning that you could have a group regeneration spell and have almost the same affect as health regeneration.

[Dreymar]

Also, I expect there may be a 'Narrative' experience similar to ME3 who just want to play the game for the story alone. So, if they just absolutely hate combat, then they can also go that route.

[Trafalgar-Law]

The Hierophant wrote...

I guess what's stated inbetween the parenthesis went over your head Trafalgar-Law?

Sorry, but when I see the word "casual player" thrown around here, I  tend to see it being used as an insult. If that wasn't your intention, then I retract the sardonic subtext of my reply and close by instead saying that just because players can overcome an unbalanced game design (which, even if this system turns out to be extremely unbalanced, I'm sure players will cook up all sorts of ways to overcome it after one or two playthroughs), it doesn't warrant said design in the first place. I think the way the DA2 assassin's/rage-demons were implemented was ridiculous. Ultimately, I came up with ways to to easily deal with them, but they shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. With Dark Souls, that sort of stuff is intentional, but not Dragon Age.

[Trafalgar-Law]

cJohnOne wrote...

Because health regeneration isn't realistic. Why would you be able to heal automatically after every battle in real life.. Healing by magic spell makes sense within the game world.

I was mentioning that you could have a group regeneration spell and have almost the same affect as health regeneration.

Not to beat this dead horse, but if we're gonna talk about realism, why would you automatically come back to life after getting killed in battle? Shouldn't death be permanent? Why have the DA enemies never killed off the main character upon capturing him? Would've saved them a lot of trouble. When enemy mages set my chacter on fire, why don't their clothes burn off or at least get permanently damaged? Shouldn't I need new armor every time a mage hits me with a fireball?

[cJohnOne]

Because they are knocked unconscious instead of dying. Well that's the explanation even if it doesn't make sense. Now I think resurrection spells would be tedious.