Dream

I understand that a video game is essentially just-for-fun, but it is not a single mechanic. I only meant that a mechanic, within a game, that must interact with and make sense in the midst of a field of other mechanics, needs to contribute more than pleasantry in its existence. Also, that, by designing a game that doesn't figuratively put class-specific obstacles in your way (completely optional stuff like locked chests with 50 gold and a potion in them, aside), you have to address the fact that those class-specific abilities have been drastically reduced in purpose. Otherwise, it's sort of like taking a headphone jack off of an MP3 player, but keeping the headphones. You can still put them in your ears, if you just like headphones, but they don't really serve a function within the system anymore. In other words, if you remove the necessity for dedicated healing to remove the restriction of party builds to need one, then, by definition, you're no longer taking more damage in any single battle in the entire game than is able to be managed by a party simply relying on their base health pools and other combat abilities. Therefore, if you take THAT scenario, and toss in a healer, everyone's immortal. So, you'd have to address the healing skills in some way, or remove it as well. You couldn't just leave healing exactly how it was when the game was designed around fights needing healers or you'd have a problem on your hands. That's all I was getting at. You take a weight off of one side of the scale, and the other side moves as well. It's understandable that you thought of that scenario, specifically, because that's how it's been in so many games. But that was Josh was trying to point out, I think. That, you can still have a heavily-armored tank who soaks up damage without relying upon a healer for the damage mitigation. Having heals reverse incoming damage is only one way of mitigating damage. I'm not even saying get rid of heals (which, I know that's been talked about, but I honestly don't know if they just mean Health, or if they mean for Stamina, too) completely. But, like you said, design that eliminates unnecessary class restrictions is a good thing, and eliminating those restrictions requires touching up related mechanics. But, healing isn't the only thing that can allow a full-plate knight to survive a battle. We're just in the habit of relying on it, thanks to long-standing RPG design. It seems we're pretty much in agreement; I guess at this point it's just a question of how much faith one has in Obsidian to deliver on their lofty goals. Maybe my problem is I'm just too pessimistic.

The argument I was anticipating was that if a game was designed with both very unique classes and situations that can all be handled by said unique classes then the fights would have to be generic by design so as to accommodate for the massive difference between the classes. Personally I disagree with that assessment and envision something akin to what you describe (no situation would require any given class, some may be easier with a given class but never impossible without).

So even with 6 fighters (one being an off healer) you were able to succeed in a game with "places where you absolutely need an arcane spellcaster." If anything that drives home the point that JS's desire to balance everyone to be able to do everything (combat wise) seems a bit unnecessary (perhaps he's underestimating how creative and adaptive players can be). You misunderstand, I was simply providing an idea to anyone who may have felt my original suggestion (no specific class would ever be required for any situation despite all the classes being vastly different) would lead to a boring game.

That's essentially what I was referring to though (what is a game if not a giant just-for-fun mechanic anyway). Every class would be able to accomplish things in unique and fun ways, but no situation would call for any single class. Now I grant that this could lead to a rather bland game, but then the obvious solution would be to design encounters with multiple ways to approach them (each way unique to a certain class). On the other hand, the more I think about it the more it sounds like I'm describing issues inherent with a single character RPG (which is why games like that usually don't have a "healer" class) because, lets be honest, who actually played BG2 with a group that consisted of a PC fighter, Minsc, Korgan, Sarevok, Mazzy, and Keldorn. There is always that, but the impression I got from "huge full plate fighter" was the kind of archetype that stands there and soaks up damage (while getting topped off by healers) while the glass cannon rogues and mages do their business. In that situation the group's longevity is limited to that fighter taking 4x (or whatever they settle for the final ratio being) his health in stamina damage before they're forced to rest, and realistically that point would come much sooner to avoid the risk of the fighter getting smoked mid battle.

Yes, but how much of the option of looking badass? I joke. I know it's a game, and part of the reason we play is to get to experience things that we don't get to in our daily lives. Running amok with a battleaxe in each hand is one of those things. So... *makes scale gesture with hands*, haha. The only thing I don't want is for looking badass to become more of a priority than not-breaking the weapon system. I'll accept that fantasy-guy Steve McSlaughterStab is somehow powerful enough to wield two greatswords, but I don't want him to literally just be 12-times as effective as anyone else with any other weapons in the game. There should be a con to one-handed greatsword wielding. Maybe they transform into prettygoodswords? *shrug* I was more referring to dual wielding two normal weapons as opposed to being forced to use a dagger in the offhand when I was referring to looking badass. However, if they do include dual wielding 2h weapons they should restrict it as a feat for very high strength and level fighters and then do what D2 did (different damages ranges for holding weapons in 1 hand instead of 2). As for balancing dual wielding in general they could just do what BG2 did (with the numbers tweaked somewhat so that it becomes more of a style choice).

While I get what he's saying I think the better solution would be to not design any situations that would require a certain class. As long as all the classes can dish out comparable damage then I don't see much of an issue with having them be vastly different mechanics and game play wise. Except because of the proposed stamina/health and lack of healing mechanics playing this way will force you to rest far more often than if you spread out the damage taken through the whole party. This sort of group dynamic relies on a healer being present to keep that huge full plate fighter alive and kicking. This is essentially my biggest worry as well. It's possible Obsidian comes up with some amazing and brand new combat system, but it's just as likely (perhaps more so) that all these grand designs will end up falling flat in the end.

You gain the option of looking badass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELF7U-gLpg0

There are some significant differences. Can you expand on why they should be treated the same? I meant in the sense that you can't possibly fire crossbows as fast as you do in pretty much every game that has them, and guns in P:E should get the same treatment. Basically give us m4s, glocks, and benellis that look like old timey weapons.

Treat them the same way crossbows are treated in pretty much every rpg (including the IE ones).

I always saw rogues as melee glass cannons that relied on dodge and evasive abilities to avoid damage (as opposed to fighters who just took it on the chin).

Dual wield two of anything 'cause it looks awesome. Besides, how else are we going to replicate Spartacus?

Hey man, if you can tell me how adding the need to occupy a bunch of inventory slots with firewood adds depth to a game then I will gladly say I was wrong. As for healing, yea, pretty much every RPG I've played that had a deep combat system had healing in it. Look, if Obsidian proves me wrong then I will be overjoyed, but what I'm hearing is just not inspiring a lot of confidence in me. As for the rest of what you said I honestly don't even know where to begin. You're either a politician or just finished up rhetoric 101 because that is some impressively convoluted spin. Clearly this is super important to you bro so I'm just gonna give it to you, congrats.

Except this conversation was never about limitations in general, but about "fixing" save scumming. My position has been that you can't fix save scumming by simply removing the ability to do it since all that does is frustrate the player. The proper way to fix the issue to design a system wherein the player doesn't feel the need to save scum (Karkarov proposed a few solutions; there are others as well). But hey, If you want to talk about limitations in general then I guess we could do that, but that'd likely derail the thread even more. Also you seem to be a bit mad bro, may I suggest relaxing and not taking internet discussions so seriously?

I'm just the messenger... u_u Except the purpose of health management is to add depth to the combat. What's the purpose of a firewood restriction on resting? To add depth to inventory management? How is that mathematically different from putting a DoT on the enemy that after 10 seconds proceeds to undo part of the damage (unless the opponent is dead). Just saying.

Well I guess in Borderlands your "actual" health bar is the second wind timer, right? Also I suppose Dragon Age had no health whatsoever since you could never truly die. Stamina in P:E and health in BG serve the same purpose: they're bars that go down when you take damage. I wasn't actually comparing the games themselves, but the arguments made about said games. People said regenerating health would make shooters more tactical but the reality was quite the opposite; same thing here. Is it possible that Obsidian comes up with some revolutionary combat system revolving around this two bar crap? Yea, sure, but I'm not holding my breath over that possibility. Story wise Obsidian's a great studio, but combat wise? Not so much. Look at the combat systems they've developed so far: DS3: A crappy Diablo clone where they somehow managed to **** up the controls so bad that it was impossible to play without a gamepad (not to mention completely butchering the feel of the original games). AP: An okay third person shooter... if it was released half a decade ago. Even compared to ME2 it was lackluster combat wise (not to mention actual TPS games like Gears, Uncharted, Army of Two, Max Payne, etc.). NV: Straight port of FO3's combat (obviously). KotoR2: Basically KotoR but slightly improved. NWN2: Probably their best combat system so far since it was essentially a 3D Baldur's Gate. So basically we have a port, an update, a revamp (from 2d to 3d), and 2 crappy/mediocre originals, but maybe 6th time's a charm for them.

I'll give you that save scumming (and other "degenerate" forms of gameplay) makes it easier (why else would people do it), but I think there are better ways to make a game challenging than by simply limiting the player can do. Edit: Karkarov said it very well

That's cute. I didn't realize I was talking to myself; I guess lephys is a figment of my imagination.

It doesn't matter if it's called shields, stamina, or whatever; it's the same thing as regenerating health.

I didn't hear any objection to "that literally defeats the purpose of the minigame" there, so I'll assume my point was taken. Optional or not, if something's intended to be random, something's intended to be random. You may not like that you only win money SOMEtimes in the dice game, but you want to play the dice game. No, you just want guaranteed money. Why? Because you don't like the item system that limits what equipment you can by based on the amount of money you have? So, then you're going to complain because you have to reload 30 times just to accumulate enough illigimate gold to buy some awesome equipment? The developers were kind enough to allow you save anywhere, even though they knew you could do stuff like that with it. And your response is "people wouldn't save scum if they didn't have to"? That's like saying "People wouldn't commit armed robbery if banks didn't lock their vaults and try to call the police whenever they came in to take all the money." I think the fact that people actually play all the way through games without doing it (and that people go through life without robbing banks) is proof enough that they didn't "have to." The existence of randomization doesn't mandate that people play the game despite hating any and all unfavored outcomes, and therefore does not mandate save scumming. The misuse of randomization is the only case where your point applies. If the game let you create a character, then supplied you with a randomly-generated character, despite whatever you picked at character creation, then yes... you would essentially have to keep creating characters until you got the one you wanted. The difference is that you're SUPPOSED to be able to customize your character. You're not supposed to be able to customize your dice game outcome, or the challenges presented to you in an RPG story. Back to the topic at hand, I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, Josh has yet to say what our ratio of health to stamina will be able to be. He only stated that the damage taken will apply to both in a ratio of 1:4 (at the current phase in design). So, that's something else to consider in this discussion. Perhaps that's how he meant it, but he has yet to specify. You do realize that a bank robbery affects other people and a single player affects.... you; it's not just rules, but morals and not being an **** that stops people from robbing banks (although it's possible you're a terrible person and don't understand that, in which case my bad). Also the developers weren't "kind enough to allow us to save anywhere," they allowed it because games like the Witcher would be ****ing awful with checkpoints. As for RNG: yea, doesn't mandate save scumming, but some people can't stand that **** and for them it's a solution to something that would otherwise heavily hamper their enjoyment of the product (and the developers clearly don't disagree since they've "allowed" it to occur for, well, ever). Why, exactly, is another player's enjoyment of a game (due to playing it the "wrong" way) such a bother to you that you wish to ban all playstyles except yours? As an aside each npc in that dice game had a set amount of cash so the only thing save scumming really did was save you 10 - 15 minutes before you drained each player (and also prevent the rage inducing FUUUU when the game decided to **** with you). Considering there was barely any skill to the game (and the fact it was rigged against the player) the only thing people were bypassing was a time sink.

Have you ever actually played any shooters with non-regening health? The things you describe are completely independent of whether the shooter has health packs or regeneration (if anything limited health requires you to use good tactics more). In fact, if we're talking singleplayer, then pretty much every modern shooter comes down to poke your head out, take out a guy or two, wait for health if you got shot, and repeat. As for multiplayer, are you honestly going to tell me that CoD has more tactical depth than TF2 (which, as an added bonus, has a healing class) or Quake live? So you admit that adding different archetypes adds depth? Good. How then, exactly, would adding a healer on top of that subtract from the depth of play, or are 9 different damage dealers more complex than 9 different damage dealers and 1 healer.

Only if it's also an option to kick down the door and yell "Surprise, mother****er!"

Except that's the exact opposite of how it plays out. Systems with regenerating health allow you to just take it and duck behind cover whenever you get low where as systems with health packs require you to actively manage your health because you have a finite supply of healing. Mathematically there is no difference, but by that logic we should just have 1 class with 1 ability called damage since, mathematically, it's all the same thing. The tactical depth comes from having characters that can do different things. Also books, video games, and competitive sports are completely different things, it's not even apples and oranges at that point it's dump trucks and sunflower seeds.

Yea, GW2 is a multiplayer game where you play one character. They took away the healer so that no one would be forced to play as a healer (or tank for that instance), and everyone could play DPS. That is not an issue in a single player game where you control 6 characters at once. that's a fair point. but it does prove that you can make a good game without depending on the holy trinity of tank healer dps But the entire concept of the trinity is exclusive to MMO games; that concept never even existed before them. No one ever spoke of the trinity when discussing the IE games. GW2 may be more exciting than WoW combat wise, but that's because of the control scheme, not the lack of healing. Hell, TERA had dedicated healers but the combat there was far and away more engaging than either GW2 or WoW due to how it was designed. Your argument is the basically same as the one used by modern shooters in that health management is boring so lets do away with health packs and just let everyone regenerate to full. Now, I'm not saying that's wrong by any means (I like both Doom and Halo), but it's definitely does not lead to a more inherently tactical game. Also clerics and druids were never only centered around healing. Part of the strategy of the IE games was deciding how much of your spellbook to dedicate to healing spells vs damage. By taking that away you're simplifying the game (which, if that's what you're going for, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I doubt that's what fans of the IE games want).

The only buffs I like are ones that are fast cast/short duration. When you have those then you end up using them more tactically rather than just "oh, time for combat, lemme cast all my buffs before I start." If they're going to have long duration buffs may as well make them auras (same purpose and less annoying to keep up all the time).

Yea, GW2 is a multiplayer game where you play one character. They took away the healer so that no one would be forced to play as a healer (or tank for that instance), and everyone could play DPS. That is not an issue in a single player game where you control 6 characters at once.