Jump to content

Photo

No healing spells whatsoever


2061 replies to this topic

#526
volkoff

volkoff
  • Members
  • 74 posts

To me it looks like they switched from heal spam to barrier spam. The difference being you had various types of healing spells and you just got one barrier spell, excluding guardian spirit passive (as far as we know).

 

In the Dragon Age books healing was ussualy done outside combat and was exhausting the mage rapidly. 

 

yeah, what i've seen in the video it seems that barrier doesnt have a cooldown, it's just focus dependant. and it affects everyone in its radius. also, did they had DOTS on them in the video ? or does the barrier slowly fade even without taking damage ? i think it's the latter.

if you play it properly it seems to me that if you make sure the enemy group (//incoming damage) isn't to big then you're able to keep barrier up on your party nearly all the time. and if it's to big you can use CC's and/or you go for some quick takedowns (to downsize the group)

and if there is one thing that mmo's/rpg's has taught me is that barrier spells are more effective then pure heals since they tend to make it easier compared to pure healing. see barrier as an addition to your healthpool. you're able to survive hits which would otherwise oneshot you, you're less sensitive to burst/spike damage and you generally have more time to react to damage. and your healing will be more efficient.

a rundown; (heal and barrier are the same amount of health points)
lets say person X takes some damage, he doesnt seem to take damage anymore so you top him off incase of some unexpected burst. you've healed him for 200 while he only missed 50 health. then 5 seconds later he takes some unexpected burst. 100 damage. now you have to heal him again or risk loosing him to some more un-anticipated damage. so you've either used 2 heals or you've used 1 heal and risked loosing him. however; lets run this scenario down but then with the irregulare 'heal'(i.e. barrier)

you might've already anticipated that person X will take damage at some point and decided to pre-barrier person X. in that case then person X has lost nothing of his healthpool and you've only used 1 barrier. or he took 50 damage and you shielded him afterwards. at that point his chances of becoming instantly gibbed are even smaller then if he had a full healthpool and no barrier. even after the 100 hit. because then he would have -50 health and a 100 barrier left

ofcourse you could've also waited for that person to take 150 damage before you healed him. but the point im making is that you generally waste less resources and with barrier your chances of unexpectidly loosing someone are smaller.

i think people are just complaining because they changed something and they arent used to it. i think it's actually a change which will make the game easier if you use it properly. there generally is more skill involved in barrier healing in games (if it's cooldown or greatly resource dependant which it is) but the reward is greater. you just have to plan ahead. get a feel of when damage is coming and to whom. or you could just.... tell your party to hug and spam barrier on everyone... dat skills...



#527
PhroXenGold

PhroXenGold
  • Members
  • 1,855 posts

4. If its not broken, don't fix it.

 

That way leads to stagnation. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that it's the best it can be.


  • HTTP 404, KoorahUK and Arvaarad like this

#528
Rawgrim

Rawgrim
  • Members
  • 11,534 posts

That way leads to stagnation. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that it's the best it can be.

 

True. DA2 and ME3 did that, though. Didn't really work out well.


  • ghostzodd likes this

#529
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19,631 posts

Yes, really. The barriers now feel more like the Mass Effect handled them. It's like they're trying to merge both battle systems and trying to attract a different fanbase. This game to me doesn't feel like the two first games from what I've seen through the medias. The story seems interesting, but the gameplay so far is a huge turnoff for me.


I think the best thing for you would be to wait after release.
  • Teddie Sage, AresKeith and DrBlingzle like this

#530
Revan Reborn

Revan Reborn
  • Members
  • 3,007 posts

They are making games for EA now. That is where the difference is. And most of the people that were involved with the games that put Bioware on the map have left.

In BioWare's defense, they were owned by Electronic Arts before they ever released Dragon Age Origins. The merger between BioWare/Pandemic and EA happened shortly after the release of the first Mass Effect on the Xbox 360 in the fall of 2007. Dragon Age Origins, of course, wasn't released until the fall of 2009.

 

As far as the Dragon Age team is concerned, it's still largely intact. It was mainly the leadership (Ray and Greg) and some of the writers (Drew (Kotor and ME) and Daniel (DAO and SWTOR)) who have left. James Ohlen, who was the Game Director on KotOR and DAO, is now the Game Director on SWTOR and Shadow Realms. With the exception of him, many who worked on DAO and DA2 are definitely still around. They just aren't necessarily as well-known as they weren't the faces or leadership of the organization. Mike Laidlaw and Mark Darrah clearly have been around since the beginning.



#531
eyezonlyii

eyezonlyii
  • Members
  • 1,715 posts

I don't think the lack of healing spells is in any way related to lore. It's mechanical.

Health is a long term resource in Inquisition. Mana/Stamina is a short term resource. This is the opposite of many traditional Rpg systems where mana/spells are a long term resource and health can be regain quickly and cheaply. Final Fantasy and old D&D use this system so they have healing spells. In DAO and DAII both Mana and health were short term resources that would recharge quickly so they could also have healing spells.

 

In Inquisition traditional Healing spells that run off mana would break the system as it would turn health into a short term resource.

 

Placing a long cool down on the spell would not work as it might force people to wait to heal. Having to wait 5 mins to in real time just so you can heal up your party dose not sound fun. It sounds like a Facebook game.

 

There are three ways that healing is being implemented. all of which keep health a long term resource.

 

1.  You can give a limited number of temporary hit points.- Mages have barrier which gives temp hp the and warriors also have a self protection mechanic.

2. A caped healing spell. By this I mean a spell that only heals to a certain extent. So a spell that revives a party member and restores 25% of there health.

3. Using a long term resource like potions.

 

4. If its not broken, don't fix it.

5. Or severely penalize healing within combat. So a heal spell heals for 20% of max effectiveness when in combat due to the mage not being able to focus or something.



#532
PhroXenGold

PhroXenGold
  • Members
  • 1,855 posts

True. DA2 and ME3 did that, though. Didn't really work out well.

 

Gameplay wise, I'd say DA2 was about equal to Origins (both had some good aspects and some less good), and ME3 was a step forward over its predecessors. So...yeah.



#533
CronoDragoon

CronoDragoon
  • Members
  • 10,413 posts

True. DA2 and ME3 did that, though. Didn't really work out well.

 

It did for ME3. DA2 was not so lucky, though it did bring several improvements to the gameplay which are carrying over to Inquisition.



#534
Nefla

Nefla
  • Members
  • 7,750 posts

That way leads to stagnation. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean that it's the best it can be.

So improve it, don't just cut it altogether.


  • Xilizhra likes this

#535
Mykel54

Mykel54
  • Members
  • 1,180 posts

Why remove healing spells but keep healing potions in? If bioware wanted a challenge, then the player should not be using healing potions either. If you are supposed to learn to manage your health bar, then potions are like healing spells that you buy with money.

 

The only advantage i see here is having a healer (or someone with a heal spell) is no longer mandatory, therefore you have more freedom with party selection.



#536
Rawgrim

Rawgrim
  • Members
  • 11,534 posts

It did for ME3. DA2 was not so lucky, though it did bring several improvements to the gameplay which are carrying over to Inquisition.

 

Auto-dialogue, forced multiplayer (for the first few months), nullifying choices in the previous games, the ending. Didn't go so well with ME3 either.



#537
CronoDragoon

CronoDragoon
  • Members
  • 10,413 posts

So improve it, don't just cut it altogether.

 

Healing spells have a specific function within party mechanics. That function is looking to be handled in a more interesting way in Inquisition. So it is being improved.

 

Auto-dialogue, forced multiplayer (for the first few months), nullifying choices in the previous games, the ending. Didn't go so well with ME3 either.

 

We're talking about gameplay mechanics in this thread.



#538
PhroXenGold

PhroXenGold
  • Members
  • 1,855 posts

So improve it, don't just cut it altogether.

 

They aren't cutting it entirely. You still have to work to keep your party alive. They're just now using a system for that they believe is better than healing.



#539
Rawgrim

Rawgrim
  • Members
  • 11,534 posts

Why remove healing spells but keep healing potions in? If bioware wanted a challenge, then the player should not be using healing potions either. If you are supposed to learn to manage your health bar, then potions are like healing spells that you buy with money.

 

The only advantage i see here is having a healer (or someone with a heal spell) is no longer mandatory, therefore you have more freedom with party selection.

 

You can only use a limited amount of potions for each....each time you leave your camp, I belive. So for each quest, or something.



#540
eyezonlyii

eyezonlyii
  • Members
  • 1,715 posts

They aren't cutting it entirely. You still have to work to keep your party alive. They're just now using a system for that they believe is better than healing.

Which ironically includes healing...WITH SCIENCE!


  • Rawgrim likes this

#541
PhroXenGold

PhroXenGold
  • Members
  • 1,855 posts

Auto-dialogue, forced multiplayer (for the first few months), nullifying choices in the previous games, the ending. Didn't go so well with ME3 either.

 

For all the flaws you've highlighted there, gameplay wise - which is what this particular change you're so up in arms about is so thus it's the relevant metric to judge ME3 by - it was a step forward despite changing things. So I see no reason to think DA:I won't also be.



#542
Nefla

Nefla
  • Members
  • 7,750 posts

Healing spells have a specific function within party mechanics. That function is looking to be handled in a more interesting way in Inquisition. So it is being improved.

 

 

We're talking about gameplay mechanics in this thread.

More interesting in your opinion. Tedious and annoying in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

 

They aren't cutting it entirely. You still have to work to keep your party alive. They're just now using a system for that they believe is better than healing.

They ARE cutting healing magic entirely which I don't like. They believe their repetitive barrier system is better, I don't.


  • Bekkael and Hyeonmu like this

#543
The Elder King

The Elder King
  • Members
  • 19,631 posts

More interesting in your opinion. Tedious and annoying in my opinion and the opinion of many others.
 

They ARE cutting healing magic entirely which I don't like. They believe their repetitive barrier system is better, I don't.

Not entirely. A group heal spell is still available.

#544
AresKeith

AresKeith
  • Members
  • 34,128 posts

More interesting in your opinion. Tedious and annoying in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

 

They ARE cutting healing magic entirely which I don't like. They believe their repetitive barrier system is better, I don't.

 

It's not being cut entirely



#545
Teddie Sage

Teddie Sage
  • Members
  • 6,754 posts

I think the best thing for you would be to wait after release.

Exactly what I'm planning to do. Thanks Youtube.



#546
Lukas Kristjanson

Lukas Kristjanson
  • BioWare Employees
  • 237 posts

*
POPULAR

A lot of people are picturing trying to play DAO/2 with no heals. Of course that wouldn't work, those games weren't balanced for that. But how well were they balanced with heals, really? I'm not a numbers guy, but I like a good fight. And here's what made it make sense for me.

There's a very simple reason why this is a good decision, and it's also why the balance in DAO/2 was all over the map. It's in the question "How many health points does a player have?" Because we need to know this before we can design an encounter and know how balanced it is.

So, how many HP? Well, we'd hope it starts with "somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the max for a warrior, varied based on party makeup." Okay, good place to start. That's a real number. We can build encounters that do somewhere within that range of total damage + effects.

Now add in healing. How many HP does the player have? "Somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the max for a warrior, plus somewhere between the minimum and maximum number of healing spells/potions and between the min/max of their mana/potions."

Okay, how much HP is that exactly? Since potions restore mana, and potions also restored HP, the actual number of potential HP was somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the total amount of gold you had available to spend on potions. And the later in the game it was, the more the top reached astronomical numbers. And so the greatest power the player had in previous games was not any one of their abilities, it was the ability to make the number of HP impossible to estimate.

And to counter effectively infinite HP, "balance" meant we needed to hit the player with far more potential damage than their characters could withstand, and do it all but instantly. In effect, replacing HP damage (unknown limits) with death/resurrection (known limits). Or we had to stop them from chaining potions, meaning more enemies that put them to sleep or confused them, or otherwise made the player not able to take action. Alpha strikes and crowd control, neither of which were tactics that were fun to face again and again, because they "balanced" by removing actions, by removing control.

Now in Inquisition, by reducing healing, by actually defining HP to a range that can have real numbers in it, we can better balance encounters. And no, players can't rely on chaining potions. So what do they get instead?

Abilities/gear/choices that actually have an effect on the battle that is greater than infinite health on your belt. And because your greatest ability isn't chugging potions, we need less effects that shut you down. You spend more time in control of your characters making more varied decisions to have a greater effect on the flow of the battle. You have regen from spells and potions and gear. You have effects you can craft that grant health on enemy deaths. You have damage mitigation through abilities and buffs and crafting. Limiting health and balancing enemies accordingly makes more tactical choices viable while keeping the challenge.

Does this make it more difficult? On Nightmare, Well, you asked for a challenge, and you'll have one that you can overcome in many more viable ways than previously possible.

But what about Easy? Well, last weekend, on Easy/Casual, starting the game with a mage and me not saying a word, my seven year old played for two hours that included many battles, including rifts and beating the crap out of a low level Pride demon. No party wipes. I covered his ears once.

I think you'll be fine.


  • Beerfish, Derek French, Mira and 189 others like this

#547
HiroVoid

HiroVoid
  • Members
  • 3,697 posts

Sounds good to me.



#548
CronoDragoon

CronoDragoon
  • Members
  • 10,413 posts

More interesting in your opinion. Tedious and annoying in my opinion and the opinion of many others.

 

Gamers hate change. Surprise surprise.


  • HiroVoid, Zjarcal, Riverdaleswhiteflash and 1 other like this

#549
ghostzodd

ghostzodd
  • Members
  • 629 posts

First warriors cannot dual wield, and now no healing spells MADNESS!!!


  • BittermanAndy and Iyev like this

#550
Rawgrim

Rawgrim
  • Members
  • 11,534 posts

A lot of people are picturing trying to play DAO/2 with no heals. Of course that wouldn't work, those games weren't balanced for that. But how well were they balanced with heals, really? I'm not a numbers guy, but I like a good fight. And here's what made it make sense for me.

There's a very simple reason why this is a good decision, and it's also why the balance in DAO/2 was all over the map. It's in the question "How many health points does a player have?" Because we need to know this before we can design an encounter and know how balanced it is.

So, how many HP? Well, we'd hope it starts with "somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the max for a warrior, varied based on party makeup." Okay, good place to start. That's a real number. We can build encounters that do somewhere within that range of total damage + effects.

Now add in healing. How many HP does the player have? "Somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the max for a warrior, plus somewhere between the minimum and maximum number of healing spells/potions and between the min/max of their mana/potions."

Okay, how much HP is that exactly? Since potions restore mana, and potions also restored HP, the actual number of potential HP was somewhere between the minimum for a mage and the total amount of gold you had available to spend on potions. And the later in the game it was, the more the top reached astronomical numbers. And so the greatest power the player had in previous games was not any one of their abilities, it was the ability to make the number of HP impossible to estimate.

And to counter effectively infinite HP, "balance" meant we needed to hit the player with far more potential damage than their characters could withstand, and do it all but instantly. In effect, replacing HP damage (unknown limits) with death/resurrection (known limits). Or we had to stop them from chaining potions, meaning more enemies that put them to sleep or confused them, or otherwise made the player not able to take action. Alpha strikes and crowd control, neither of which were tactics that were fun to face again and again, because they "balanced" by removing actions, by removing control.

Now in Inquisition, by reducing healing, by actually defining HP to a range that can have real numbers in it, we can better balance encounters. And no, players can't rely on chaining potions. So what do they get instead?

Abilities/gear/choices that actually have an effect on the battle that is greater than infinite health on your belt. And because your greatest ability isn't chugging potions, we need less effects that shut you down. You spend more time in control of your characters making more varied decisions to have a greater effect on the flow of the battle. You have regen from spells and potions and gear. You have effects you can craft that grant health on enemy deaths. You have damage mitigation through abilities and buffs and crafting. Limiting health and balancing enemies accordingly makes more tactical choices viable while keeping the challenge.

Does this make it more difficult? On Nightmare, Well, you asked for a challenge, and you'll have one that you can overcome in many more viable ways than previously possible.

But what about Easy? Well, last weekend, on Easy/Casual, starting the game with a mage and me not saying a word, my seven year old played for two hours that included many battles, including rifts and beating the crap out of a low level Pride demon. No party wipes. I covered his ears once.

I think you'll be fine.

 

Are there any in-game reasons for why healing spells are "gone"? Something in the lore, or in the story itself?