526 réponses à ce sujet

[Trafalgar-Law]

Well that raises an even bigger question. Is everyone in the DA universe ( besides the PC and his/her party members) incompetent when it comes to killing people? I mean really, how to fail to kill someone by hurling a big fireball at them or stabbing them multiple times with a sword?

[The Hierophant]

In regards to the parenthesis, the game industry's conceptualization/visualization of a casual gamer is a moron who has to be coddled at every twist, and turn as they lack the mental capacity for learning/adapting. Some people may be like that but not everyone is that daft. People will adapt through trial and error and apply what they've learned to completing the game.

On the subject of no regen- There's still the possibility of passives, sustainable talents or enchanted gear that carry the health regen effect. The only difference now is that we might have to earn the ability instead of it being freely given to us. The HR effect on enchanted gear was redundant in previous games but it'll be valuable for DAI.

Looking back on it health regen is pretty op like auto revive, break damage limit, and the infinity plus one sword. Though it's inclusion in DA2 made sense as the majority of battles were gauntlet style brawls with potion cooldowns.

Plus if hazardous weather effects do exist FHR has to go.

[DarthLaxian]

Ecmoose wrote...

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.

what you are saying then is:

they either really need to reduce the challenge enemies provide (meaning they will do less damage and have fewer special abilities and hit-points) - otherwise this will never work...or they need to reduce the numbers so much that levels/dungeons either appear empty or they have to reduce size of those, too!

so the scenario written above your posting is like this now:

enter dungeon

fight group of spiders

lose some hp in the process (5-10%)

fight next group

lose some more hp (again 5-10%)

(repeat that till you decide to use a potion to heal yourself to full or till you run out of potions - or, if you are lucky: you meet the boss - problem is now: do you still have potions for a larger fight?...if not: go back to camp and pray, that there is no respawn (if they have that...))

TEDIOUS!

greetings LAX
ps: health-regeneration all the way - guess why designers tossed the old mechanic of static health (and healt packages - like in shooters) out? - yeah, because of that...it just stretches play-time (that's one reason some of the older games took so long to finish...that and them being longer then most modern ones (exception: good RPGs!)

[DarthLaxian]

Ecmoose wrote...

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.

could work like ME3 - you have bars and you only "re-fill" the one that has not depleted fully (empty ones need medigel)

still a bad idea though!

greetings LAX

[Trafalgar-Law]

The Hierophant wrote...

In regards to the parenthesis, the game industry's conceptualization/visualization of a casual gamer is a moron who has to be coddled at every twist, and turn as they lack the mental capacity for learning/adapting. Some people may be like that but not everyone is that daft. People will adapt through trial and error and apply what they've learned to completing the game.

I don't  believe anyone with an IQ above 80 lacks the mental capacity for learning/adapity. I'd go as far as saying that even the biggest moron  could beat Dragon Age (on any difficulty) or Ninja Gaiden (on any  difficulty) if they spent enough time on the game. Me? I've beaten these supposedly hard games. Most of the time, my issues with the games were the tedious aspects (i.e. in Ninja Gaiden, horrible camera angles,particularly when up against off-screen ranged foes) moreso than the the truly difficult parts.

The only thing special about overcoming tedium is patience. Some players will patiently put up with tedium,
otherwise know as bad game design. Imagine playing your friend in chess, only to play by rules that say that each time you lose a piece, you have to run 2 miles through a city with your eyes closed. Would that make chess more fun? Would you be any the lesser for having no desire to complete  such a game? Heaven forbid.

There are a lot of old NES games thought to be difficult, yet in reality tedious.  I could probably beat them if I had the time/patience/it to beat them. Thing is, I have better things to do. Some of the games in the Fire Emblem series (particularly on the higher difficulties) are good examples of truly hard game that aren't tedious.

On the subject of no regen- There's still the possibility of passives, sustainable talentsor enchanted gear that carry the health regen effect. The only difference now is that we might have to earn the ability instead of it
being freely given to us.

Which is a fine way to avert having to tediously backtrack later on, but says nothing about the problem early in the game. Thing is, the early portions of these games tend to be the toughest. Enemies are lot more fearsome when I can't just slap them with a Cone of Cold combo, nail elite level foes with assinate or use haste to end battles quick. This in itself is not a problem, but the question still boils down to whether I'm gonna be bored out of my mind having to spend time backtracking whenever I screw up merely by losing some health. This is not so much of a problem in Dark Souls since most of the enemies can easily kill you even when you're at full health. A bit different in Dragon Age though.

Looking back on it health regen

I disagree. Health regen simply keeps us from having to deal with the artificial difficulty involved in backtracking to an Inn/Town. There are plenty of ways to actually make the game challenging as opposed to boring. I believe many suggestions have been raised here. Tougher foes, expanded injury system, etc. The limited amount of healing items is also good.

Modifié par Trafalgar-Law, 06 septembre 2013 - 01:44 .

[Ecmoose]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Ecmoose wrote...

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.

what you are saying then is:

they either really need to reduce the challenge enemies provide (meaning they will do less damage and have fewer special abilities and hit-points) - otherwise this will never work...or they need to reduce the numbers so much that levels/dungeons either appear empty or they have to reduce size of those, too!

so the scenario written above your posting is like this now

enter dungeon

fight group of spiders

lose some hp in the process (5-10%)

fight next group

lose some more hp (again 5-10%)

(repeat that till you decide to use a potion to heal yourself to full or till you run out of potions - or, if you are lucky: you meet the boss - problem is now: do you still have potions for a larger fight?...if not: go back to camp and pray, that there is no respawn (if they have that...))

TEDIOUS!

greetings LAX
ps: health-regeneration all the way - guess why designers tossed the old mechanic of static health (and healt packages - like in shooters) out? - yeah, because of that...it just stretches play-time (that's one reason some of the older games took so long to finish...that and them being longer then most modern ones (exception: good RPGs!)

Wrong. The new scenario would be  (for the purpose of the example we'll say the Easy Mode Healing Threshold is 90%

FIght group of soldiers (lose 5-10% hp)
Battle ends heal up to threshold (up to 90% or whatever you're comfortable with)
Fight group of soldiers (lose 5-10% hp)
Battle ends, heal up to threshold  (up to 90% or whatever you're comfortable with)


Which means at lower difficulties, health regen is basically back, and at harder difficulties you actually need to pull off succesful battle techniques otherwise you'll have to run back to base.

Also we have no idea how much potions or health heal right now. Maybe they've made them stronger. So now, instead of healing when you're at 50% you can wait until your about 10% health then heal to full (like what we saw in the demo), which means now not only do you not need as many potions, but you can wait longer between uses.

A difficult encounter is not only one that takes away your health. Enemies can be tough and engaging without slapping large chunks of your HP away. Crown control is one basic system that would work.

This system is still used today. no one gave up on it. You see static health just as often as you see health regen. They are both viable in the current gaming community, provided people give them a chance.

I don't understand your argument that they would have to make the enemies weaker, considering enemies in DA2 were about as weak as I have ever fought in a video game.

If they're sticking with the Tank, DPS, Healer roles, maybe they've made the Tank and taunting more viable. Perhaps Cassandra is the only one taking massive damage. At which point you only have to use your healing spells and potions on her, meaning less item usage, less healing spell usage, and enemies that are still tough.

And finally, we still don't know how the Camp mechanic works, but if you can set up camp mid dungeon then it would be no different then waiting on your ability cool downs before taking on the next tough fight.

Modifié par Ecmoose, 06 septembre 2013 - 01:49 .

[Maverick827]

Ecmoose wrote...

I don't understand your argument that they would have to make the enemies weaker, considering enemies in DA2 were about as weak as I have ever fought in a video game.

DA2 enemies were measurably more difficult than enemies in DAO on Nightmare.  They had more health, did more damage, spawned out of nowhere, came in larger numbers, and had more devestating abilities.  Also, mage healing was severely nerfed, as were kiting tactics.

[addiction21]

I just read your sig Maverick827. It is so very fitting.

[Trafalgar-Law]

Maverick827 wrote...

Ecmoose wrote...

I don't understand your argument that they would have to make the enemies weaker, considering enemies in DA2 were about as weak as I have ever fought in a video game.

DA2 enemies were measurably more difficult than enemies in DAO on Nightmare.  They had more health, did more damage, spawned out of nowhere, came in larger numbers, and had more devestating abilities.  Also, mage healing was severely nerfed, as were kiting tactics.

So true. If you weren't extremely careful, a single blood mage could take out your entire party in virtually an instant on the higher difficulties. DAO's higher difficulties were pissy easy in comparison.

[ScarMK]

Maverick827 wrote...

Ecmoose wrote...

I don't understand your argument that they would have to make the enemies weaker, considering enemies in DA2 were about as weak as I have ever fought in a video game.

DA2 enemies were measurably more difficult than enemies in DAO on Nightmare.  They had more health, did more damage, spawned out of nowhere, came in larger numbers, and had more devestating abilities.  Also, mage healing was severely nerfed, as were kiting tactics.

Da2 is only harder in that they were given insane buffs.   Which Da:o did as well, but at least the buffs tried to stay within lore.

[Ecmoose]

Maverick827 wrote...

Ecmoose wrote...

I don't understand your argument that they would have to make the enemies weaker, considering enemies in DA2 were about as weak as I have ever fought in a video game.

DA2 enemies were measurably more difficult than enemies in DAO on Nightmare.  They had more health, did more damage, spawned out of nowhere, came in larger numbers, and had more devestating abilities.  Also, mage healing was severely nerfed, as were kiting tactics.

Admittedly, I never played DAO on nightmare, but that doesn't invalidate the statement, I did play DA2 a it's hardest but I'm also not speaking only to top level difficulties here. Acrossed the board DA2 was not such an insane level of difficulty that DAI would have to significantly nerf enemies to make up for lack of regen. They just need to structure them around a different system.

[The Hierophant]

Trafalgar-Law wrote...

I disagree. Health regen simply keeps us from having to deal with the artificial difficulty involved in backtracking to an Inn/Town. There are plenty of ways to actually make the game challenging as opposed to boring. I believe many suggestions have been raised here. Tougher foes, expanded injury system, etc. The limited amount of healing items is also good.

I wouldn't call inn diving or camping artificial difficulty as it's only a consequence of inventory mismanagement or limited supplies.

Dragon's Dogma came close to pulling it off, but the inn being the only location where you could change your job class muddles it.

[Realmzmaster]

Maverick827 wrote...

Snip..

Actually if Mike Laidlaw said that multiplayer would affect the single player campaign  I would simply ask to what degree multiplayer would affect single player. If it only partially affects single player I would simply deal with it and continue playing the single player game.

I admit many would call my playstyle old school or hardcore. I make no apologies for that. I look for games that carter to my playstyle. Unfortunately I finding fewer games that meet the criteria, so I end up having to settle. Bioware catered to that playstyle with BG1 and BG2. (Bioware deviated somewhat in NWN. ) I saw the Pax videos and heard Bioware talk about no health regen and I said cool.

Now Mike Laidlaw has stated that there will be a compromise and a certain amount of health will regenerate after battle depending on the difficulty level. So I will have to settle for that.

I like perma death. The need to eat and drink. Weather conditions should affect spellcasting, what party members wear and travel. I like resource management planning. I like setting up strategy and tactics for my companions (spending time on the tactics screen). I do not care about optimal builds. In fact I prefer taking sub optimal builds through the game.

I look for games that have a hardcore mode like FONV. I still play the older games like Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, Wizardry, Realms of Arkania and newer ones like Drakensang. I look foward to Wasteland 2, Might and Magic X and  Project Eternity to return some of that as others call it old school magic.

[cJohnOne]

Hi Realmzmaster. I think it was Mark Darrah who said that about health regenerating up to a point depending upon the difficulty level.


I looked up his twitter.  Mark Darrah said, "There will be a threshold that you will heal back to after combat. This threshold will change at different difficulties"

Modifié par cJohnOne, 06 septembre 2013 - 06:25 .

[Taura-Tierno]

Trafalgar-Law wrote...

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.

Making enemies weaker is not the only way to tackle the problem. You could also offer better opportunities to play in a smart way, to use the environment for cover or attacks, to set ambushes, weaken your enemy before engaging, etc, that might be utilised if your health is too low to just rush into the middle of combat right away. 

I don't mind some measure of backtracking. At some point, you have to go back anyway, if nothing else then to empty your inventory and sell loot. Other things might be to finish a part of a quest that you need to before proceeding. And as I've already mentioned, the large areas could mean that the same area offers up different opportunities at different times. Say that they'd have a fast travel button - you could perhaps skip the travel back to camp, but then you'd have to walk back. While walking back, new areas could have been opened, enemies could exist that were not there before, perhaps new quest triggers might be available.

You could just as well say that the system was not broken prior to introducing health regeneration. Why change it in the first place? As has been mentioned, it's an abstraction either way. I think that health regeneration is one level of abstraction too much, unless it makes sense lore-wise. Why is the system of not having health regen not broken? Because it exists and works in soooooo many games. 

Modifié par Taura-Tierno, 06 septembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[AshenSugar]

 Been reading a great many comments to the efffect of:

"If you don't like no health regen, play on casual, those who like combat support having no health regen"

I consider this kind of logic profoundly skewed.

We're already seeing a lot of speculation (in the posts directly above) about enemies being made weaker, less numerous, doing less damage etc. etc. by way of compensation for the lack of health regeneration.

I could just as easily say:

Those who want weaker enemies, clearly don't like combat, and should play on casual"

In truth, the mindset of wanting an Origins-Style regen system is NOT synonymous with wanting dead-easy combat.

Anyone who tried Casual difficulty with Origins or DA:2 will tell you that foes generally die if you so much as look at them in a mean way. No tactics or stratagems are required, and the entire game is essentially one big roflstomp.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't find that much fun. A balanced Bioware game needs a great immersive story, and engaging combat. One does not negate the other.

I don't want fights to be absolute pushovers. Give us intelligent enemies that use teamwork and group tactics to ambush and flank you, interrupt spellcasting, fetch reinforcements, shield themselves at low health, apply debuffs to the party, attack with strong AOE spells... whatever.....  But I still want my health to regenerate when out of combat.

All of this seems far more fun to me than having weaker, fewer, or less effective enemies as a requirement to balance a lack of regenerating party health. In fact, the old adage/trope "fake difficulty" springs immediately to mind.

Modifié par AshenSugar, 06 septembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[Realmzmaster]

cJohnOne wrote...

Hi Realmzmaster. I think it was Mark Darrah who said that about health regenerating up to a point depending upon the difficulty level.


I looked up his twitter.  Mark Darrah said, "There will be a threshold that you will heal back to after combat. This threshold will change at different difficulties"

You are correct. I assume that the whole team would have to get on board with the concept.

[Realmzmaster]

AshenSugar wrote...

 Been reading a great many comments to the efffect of:

"If you don't like no health regen, play on casual, those who like combat support having no health regen"

I consider this kind of logic profoundly skewed.

We're already seeing a lot of speculation (in the posts directly above) about enemies being made weaker, less numerous, doing less damage etc. etc. by way of compensation for the lack of health regeneration.

I could just as easily say:

Those who want weaker enemies, clearly don't like combat, and should play on casual"

In truth, the mindset of wanting an Origins-Style regen system is NOT synonymous with wanting dead-easy combat.

Anyone who tried Casual difficulty with Origins or DA:2 will tell you that foes generally die if you so much as look at them in a mean way. No tactics or stratagems are required, and the entire game is essentially one big roflstomp.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't find that much fun. A balanced Bioware game needs a great immersive story, and engaging combat. One does not negate the other.

I don't want fights to be absolute pushovers. Give us intelligent enemies that use teamwork and group tactics to ambush and flank you, interrupt spellcasting, fetch reinforcements, shield themselves at low health, apply debuffs to the party, attack with strong AOE spells... whatever.....  But I still want my health to regenerate when out of combat.

All of this seems far more fun to me than having weaker, fewer, or less effective enemies as a requirement to balance a lack of regenerating party health. In fact, the old adage/trope "fake difficulty" springs immediately to mind.

I want difficult enemies (i do not mean HP bloat enemies).  I want that low level enemy to be a threat to my party if the party is low on health. Health regeneration defeats that. purpose. If the party is in a dungeon and had a difficult fight and is low on health I want the next encounter with a bear to be in a position to wipe my party. The party has to set up camp to lick its wounds or struggle back to camp. I want the party to be on edge in regards to life and death not just in battle.

If the party is low on health I want the elements to play a part in that life or death experience. For example, party is in the desert and a sandstorm occurs. If the party is low on health that sandstorm is far deadlier than if at full health. Health regeneration prevents this type of occurance. I do not look at each battle separately but the entire campaign.

[Maverick827]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I want difficult enemies (i do not mean HP bloat enemies).  I want that low level enemy to be a threat to my party if the party is low on health. Health regeneration defeats that. purpose. If the party is in a dungeon and had a difficult fight and is low on health I want the next encounter with a bear to be in a position to wipe my party. The party has to set up camp to lick its wounds or struggle back to camp. I want the party to be on edge in regards to life and death not just in battle.

If the party is low on health I want the elements to play a part in that life or death experience. For example, party is in the desert and a sandstorm occurs. If the party is low on health that sandstorm is far deadlier than if at full health. Health regeneration prevents this type of occurance. I do not look at each battle separately but the entire campaign.

Which is fine for you, but that gameplay sounds incredibly tedious to many of us.  What value is there running back through the emptied halls of the Deep Roads, entering a safe zone, and then running back?

[The Hierophant]

Maverick827 wrote...

Which is fine for you, but that gameplay sounds incredibly tedious to many of us. What value is there running back through the emptied halls of the Deep Roads, entering a safe zone, and then running back?

To avoid game over?

[cJohnOne]

I seem to remember that in DAO the difficulty settings were harder before the patches. I liked it better when it was harder myself. But it didn't use to be as easy.

[Maverick827]

The Hierophant wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Which is fine for you, but that gameplay sounds incredibly tedious to many of us. What value is there running back through the emptied halls of the Deep Roads, entering a safe zone, and then running back?

To avoid game over?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean in response to my post.

[Jaulen]

d4eaming wrote...

I wouldn't mind a slow regen out of combat rather than an instant regen. I prefer to play for story rather than tactical reasons, so having limited health will be really tedious and frustrating in an unacceptable way rather than frustrating in a fun way. I'm sure I'll cope, but making that an option would definitely be nice.

^ My thoughts exactly.

Slow regen while exploring instead of instant regen.

Plus, I'm kind of irritated that it means I'd almost HAVE to have a healer mage with me.

My favorite DAO team was Alistair Sten and Zevran.
Favorite DA2 team was Varric Fenris and Avelline
And I didn't play on casual.

Modifié par Jaulen, 06 septembre 2013 - 07:55 .

[The Hierophant]

Maverick827 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Maverick827 wrote...

Which is fine for you, but that gameplay sounds incredibly tedious to many of us. What value is there running back through the emptied halls of the Deep Roads, entering a safe zone, and then running back?

To avoid game over?

I don't know what this is supposed to mean in response to my post.

It's in response to the bolded. If you have to retreat it usually means you're avoiding defeat from either overpowered enemies or being under supplied.

[Maverick827]

The Hierophant wrote...

It's in response to the bolded. If you have to retreat it usually means you're avoiding defeat from either overpowered enemies or being under supplied.

I'm not talking about retreating in the middle of combat, though.  I'm asking what value is there in running back through a dungeon after combat and then back to where you were to heal up versus simply just healing up naturally?

Modifié par Maverick827, 06 septembre 2013 - 09:27 .