[Merged] Cooldown Thread

[Hypevosa]

Hmmm, sending off individual party members to rest sounds really risky though - one good ambush and your mage would be dead, especially without spells... and it would be kinda boring if that could never happen.

[metiman]

So is there a consensus as to his basic question? Might there be any value to streamlining the traditional leave-dungeon-to-rest-mechanic? I'm thinking that it may be too risky to find out. We know that the old system is highly enjoyable for the target audience.

Do we? You may like it, but for me, the rest system was definitely one of the weaker parts of the IE games. The problem is I that I cannot think of anything better -- but if Obsidian can, then they should by all means try it. The one thing I believe there is more or less a consensus on in this thread is that there should not be cooldowns in the sense of not being to cast the same spell twice in a row without waiting a long time (as in Dragon Age: Origins).

 

If it's that important to consider then why not make the choice an optional one? Is that not an easy solution?

"Make it an option" is a solution to everything controversial, but it doubles the work the developer must do. In this case, an option would mean two different systems each of which must work throughout the game. I highly doubt they have that kind of resources to spare.

 

But what if they get it wrong. So wrong that even you prefer the old system? Monkeying with this stuff is just...it's highly risky unless you understand what makes it enjoyable for most of us really really well. This sort of 'improvement' has been attempted so many times and yet it has never succeeded. I'd like to understand why not.

 

I was mentioning in another thread how I found the custom spell system in Daggerfall to make spells somehow less interesting to me. Not more. It seemed to sort of cheapen the sense of magic to just isolate the different effects like that. How could the Bethesda devs have predicted that sort of reaction? Surely custom spell effects should be more interesting, no?

[WayneWetski]

Masochists get their jollies?

 

Why play games if you just want visual novels?

[J.E. Sawyer]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

[Lv99Wizard]

If we knew more about the current ideas Josh and the dev team are having, we'd be able to give better feedback. As it is, everyone is just guessing about things and a lot of misconceptions are arising between people interpreting certain information differently.

 

The idea of spell regen after every encounter would eliminate the feeling of peril found in the IE games. It would not reward scouting the area and preparing tactics for what you encounter and would not be have the same atmosphere as the IE experience. It would not reward the player understand the system and optimising/creating their own unique strategies. For example, in Dragon's eye I started by sneaking my thief around the place. Then I had my 2 mages stocked on Agannazzar's scorcher. They'd flank the rest of the melee characters who would lure and engage a pack of enemies in some chokepoint (bridge etc). The fighters would keep the pack in place while the mages cast, dealing damage to multiple enemies - thus optimising my spells and making them go much further. There wouldn't be any incentive to find such strategies without limiting spell casting.

[Merin]

In this circumstance, what is good about the experience of walking back to the campsite?

This is the reason why we have fast travel.

Fast travel is one of the evils of recent cRPG.

 

 

Oh, for the love of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, it is one of the most blessed things about cRPGs ever.

[andreisiadi]

Maybe a few counter questions:

* If the cooldown on spells/abilities is low, and all it takes is spamming the same 3-4 optimal skills over and over again every few seconds, where is the fun and tactical challenge in that?

* If the cooldown is long and it takes minutes for a spell to regenerate and you are standing before an encounter where you know you will likely need it, how exactly is it better than the campsite approach e.g. "I'm getting my Ultimate in 10 minutes, then we can do the boss, AFK brb in 10" in MMORPGs

* Do you (or does anyone else) have a single example of a CRPG in which a cooldown system has worked better tactically and regarding challenging gameplay, than one where players have to prepare for encounters beforehand?

 

This. This explains again what all of us have been shouting. This is why cooldowns is a bad idea. 'Nuff said.

[evdk]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

So Josh, I admit I am getting a bit confused here - you do support all spells automatically regenerating a set time after combat resolution?

[Captain Shrek]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

 

Oh boy, am I one of them. So I assume that wizards will be casting standard buffs and magic missiles only and not anything DnD worthy in order for of this system to work.

 

Would it be a bad idea at this moment to consider other systems where more powerful but otherwise limited wizards are allowed? That does seem too spectacular from a balanced game point of view, that I must agree.

[anek]

In this circumstance, what is good about the experience of walking back to the campsite?

 

Nothing, which is why I usually don't do it.

 

In those games (Infinity Engine), you almost never *need* a specific choice of spells memorized in order to finish a dungeon. Not with a party of 6 that includes some fighter types as well as multiple divine and arcane casters.

 

Sure, if you knew what exactly will come ahead you could choose a very specific selection of spells that would make things easier, but your normal 'dungeon spell selection' will get you through it as well.

 

Also, you usually do have some clues as to what expect beforehand (like, a pack of wolves has been turned undead by an evil entity whose dungeon you're now entering with the intent of tracking him down - chances are you'll be fighting lots more undead inside the dungeon). The spell system rewards you for learning to make rough guesses on what to expect based on the limited clues.

[Infinitron]

Wonderful. Have we gone from worrying about 30 second cooldowns within combat to worrying about 30 second cooldowns outside of combat? It's not much of an improvement.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Infinitron

[Hypevosa]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

 

Yes. This is a massive part of the appeal of having magical characters. It's satisfaction and flair.

 

Warriors can get lucky and critical an enemy, causing them to explode and the screen to shake - that is incredibly satisfying and fun.

 

Rogues can sneak up behind a powerful enemy and 1 hit them with a sneak attack. That is incredibly satisfying and fun.

 

Mages can level entire parties, one hit powerful enemies, and cause all sorts of amazing and satisfying things to happen.

 

Each has their moments where they shine, the difference is that Mages can largely choose those moments, X times a day, while the other classes usually have those moments occur randomly but more often.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The idea of spell regen after every encounter would eliminate the feeling of peril found in the IE games. It would not reward scouting the area and preparing tactics for what you encounter and would not be have the same atmosphere as the IE experience. It would not reward the player understand the system and optimising/creating their own unique strategies. For example, in Dragon's eye I started by sneaking my thief around the place. Then I had my 2 mages stocked on Agannazzar's scorcher. They'd flank the rest of the melee characters who would lure and engage a pack of enemies in some chokepoint (bridge etc). The fighters would keep the pack in place while the mages cast, dealing damage to multiple enemies - thus optimising my spells and making them go much further. There wouldn't be any incentive to find such strategies without limiting spell casting.

Isn't the incentive that the fight goes much easier when you scout and select your spells prior to engaging the enemy? Whether you're going to get AS back immediately after the fight or as soon as you can/choose to rest, the enjoyment comes from having AS before you start the fight and using it in a tactically excellent way. Scouting is what gives you the buffer of safety to make those preparations.

[Osvir]

Hmmm, sending off individual party members to rest sounds really risky though - one good ambush and your mage would be dead, especially without spells... and it would be kinda boring if that could never happen.

 

Good, we're on the same page. Continously, if you could have an Escort slot as well, how would that work in these ambush sequences? How would the Escort (depending on class) affect the chance in anything bad happening along the way back to camp?

 

If I would send my Mage and Thief back to camp, the Thief could (from a roleplaying perspective, and also by mechanics) extend the time it takes to get back to camp back and forth safely because the Thief needs to "scout" the way to see if there's any threat to both of them as well as lessening the chance for a random encounter for them on their way back. With an escort joining the prime target (doesn't necessarily have to be a Mage) you would be at an even greater disadvantage at 4 party members.

 

However, this has the "Waiting for Mage to return"-effect to it as a player. Somehow I doubt that everyone would do that all the time, even though it is something of a risky consequence. Maybe open up a window as the Mage has gotten to camp, maybe a button starts glowing when the Mage is fully rested that you have to press?

 

I still say make resting a hassle in some way, so that it'll be simply too tedious to abuse it.

[Captain Shrek]

The idea of spell regen after every encounter would eliminate the feeling of peril found in the IE games. It would not reward scouting the area and preparing tactics for what you encounter and would not be have the same atmosphere as the IE experience. It would not reward the player understand the system and optimising/creating their own unique strategies. For example, in Dragon's eye I started by sneaking my thief around the place. Then I had my 2 mages stocked on Agannazzar's scorcher. They'd flank the rest of the melee characters who would lure and engage a pack of enemies in some chokepoint (bridge etc). The fighters would keep the pack in place while the mages cast, dealing damage to multiple enemies - thus optimising my spells and making them go much further. There wouldn't be any incentive to find such strategies without limiting spell casting.

Isn't the incentive that the fight goes much easier when you scout and select your spells prior to engaging the enemy? Whether you're going to get AS back immediately after the fight or as soon as you can/choose to rest, the enjoyment comes from having AS before you start the fight and using it in a tactically excellent way. Scouting is what gives you the buffer of safety to make those preparations.

 

I must disagree. Save +Load gives you best tactical advantage. Why scout and do all that tedious hiding in the shadows when you can simply reload from... dare I say a checkpoint?

 

oh. my imagination fairy just bit me. Why not autosave just before an encounter is about to happen? This will save me loads of trouble and tedium!

Edited October 2, 2012 by Captain Shrek

[Shadenuat]

As a side note, Web or Stinking Cloud spell is as much "omnipotent" as Wail of Banshee when you first get it in D&D, every IE game included. While you cleared encounters in BG2 using high-level spells, in BG1 you see an enemy, throw Web and enjoy yourself watching idiots die.

Actually, in BG1 players usually chopped through as many encounters as their wizards had Sleep spells prepared

Edited October 3, 2012 by Shadenuat

[Stun]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

Ugh... see, that is my worry. With a cool down system, magic must be nerfed and borderline uncreative. That's just the way it is. You can't allow mages to cast massive death spells, massive disabling spells and massive confusion spells on a timer that runs out every few minutes, and still expect balanced gameplay.

 

I don't want omnipotent mages, (I prefer my mages to be glass canons) but at the same time, there is NOTHING worse than one-dimensional mages that feel like little more than energy ray-shooting archers. Because as another poster somewhere here said.... that just sucks all the magic out of magic. But I have never seen a cool-down system in any game where they were anything but that..... so....

Edited October 3, 2012 by Stun

[Shevek]

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

 

I vote yes. That is definately not something that should regen off cooldown. That should be there as a daily power.

[fkldnhlsdngsfnhlsndlg]

First off, I want to thank Josh for taking the time to participate in this discussion whole-heartedly. It's really nice hearing from a developer directly.

 

My thoughts on cooldowns and encounter design were already stated by Alex earlier, so I'll sum up by stating that individual encounters should not be the be-all, end-all decider on mechanics, balance, and so on. Long-term consequence for misuse of character abilities is a staple of classic RPGs, and while it works well in a tabletop setting where players are subject to the whims of other players and can't just rest every ten minutes to get their spells back like in Baldur's Gate, in videogames it is a different problem entirely. Even if you were to try to replicate that same tabletop feeling by making resting inconvenient or awkward (with ambushes, for instance, or simply not allowing any resting except for in town), it still wouldn't really work the same way because combat also behaves differently in a videogame - i.e. more encounters that individually take less time to complete.

 

Cooldown mechanics are able to provide short-term punishment to players by preventing them from using a spell or subset of spells for a given amount of time after casting. When put in the context of a real-time combat system, cooldowns actually make a lot of sense, because the relative time between spells, attacks, movements, etc. is one of the most critical and important things to manage. Missing a spell and losing out on it for 30 seconds can mean the difference between a battle lost and won. In this respect I have no issues with them.

 

Where cooldowns don't work, at least on their own, is in creating gameplay where attrition matters, not just in the immediate 30 seconds, or 2 minutes, or even 15 minutes. If I cast Fireball and miss, that's 30 seconds down the drain, but once the fight is over, those 30 seconds are basically meaningless and might as well just disappear. However, since real time systems tend to be balanced in such a way as to promote the use of abilities on a per-encounter basis, losing out on that Fireball for, say, 15 minutes would be a huge blow to combat effectiveness far out of proportion with the benefit it provides when it is successful.

 

This was mostly (though not entirely) averted in D&D by providing the player with lots of spell slots. At level 5+ the player should still be able to cast a dozen or more spells from each caster, many of them able to turn the tide of an encounter. In this respect mages are basically a risk:reward proposition whereby you are leaving out much of the direct damage a fighter could inflict, but making up for it in utility. Different flavours of mages (wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, etc.) provide a way to fine-tune play-style, so for instance, if you don't like memorizing specific spells only to run out of one you like at a critical moment, you can play a sorcerer but give up the breadth of your capability. Without cooldowns, some of this risk:reward of mages as a class disappears.

 

What also makes spell memorization interesting is that players are liable for their success or failure before-hand. Do I take 3 Fireballs or 3 Cloud Kills? Depending on the situation, any combination of spells could be appropriate. In tabletop gaming, this is effectively meant to be a way of testing the player's strategy, knowledge of the game world, and mechanical aptitude. In D&D, you're expected not to just rush into every combat encounter, but to ask the local sage about the monster's weaknesses and prepare accordingly, or buy items as contingencies, or scouting ahead. Most videogames, meanwhile, emphasize action over exploration and problem-solving, and furthermore even some of the best CRPGs out there do not do a good job at giving players hints on what threats they will face and how to deal with them. This means that spell memorization feels less like a reward for playing well and more like an unnecessary annoyance, even though the problems come from the design of the rest of the game and not the spell memorization itself.

 

Where many modern games also get it wrong is in consolidating everything. Don't get separate spells, but upgrade them instead. Don't have five fire attacks when you can have one. The quest for simplification utterly necessitates a cooldown-centric model because the variety that is the lifeblood of regular spell memorization systems simply isn't there. If your only way to win a fight is to spam a couple of spells over and over again, limiting them in an arbitrary way is just unnecessary. These games do are not created with any attrition in mind and tactics rarely enter into the equation, something which I think is not at all appropriate for a "proper" RPG.

 

However, cooldowns, as I've said, are not the problem in and of themselves - it's the implementation of the cooldowns and how they operate within the rest of the game systems that matter. As Josh has said, we have no hint that Project Eternity will have any sort of cooldown system in place that resembles, say, Diablo III's per-skill setup. For all we know, there will be cooldowns on each school of magic, or on specific powerful abilities. This is why I am hestitant to say cooldowns are the death of Project Eternity - done right, they could actually be made interesting and fun, and might fit the real-time setup better than the Infinity Engine games' system. Let's remember that an original ruleset and universe means that a lot of problems can be fixed (or created) by Obsidian, and many of the issues users have with cooldowns (i.e. lore-breaking, skill-spamming) can be averted by not having to adhere to expectations of the fanbase.

 

There is one lingering question I have, though - given that cooldowns might be implemented on a more global basis, i.e. per spell school or for all spells, why can that same functionality be transferred over to a mana pool of some sort? Whereas cooldowns tend to be non-interruptable, a mana pool can be refilled by a variety of means. Some games even have multiple types of mana resources. Some games have mana that doesn't regenerate on its own, meaning there is long-term consequence to misusing spells. And, on top of that, mana also tends to be more lore-friendly than cooldowns, which can come across as overly gamey. If you want to keep separate mana and cooldowns, why not implement a stamina feature instead to accomplish a similar goal?

 

Addendum: the topic of consumables was brought up, with the issue being that potions/scrolls were never used by players because they never knew when it was a good idea to use them. I think comparing this to spells is unfair for a variety of reasons.

1. Spells and scrolls tend to be less effective and decisive than spells cast by a mage
   
2. Spells and scrolls have monetary value and they can be sold; the magic a mage has available can't
   
3. Mage spells are not replenished in the same way as consumables
   

I think that consumables make an excellent supplement to spell memorization systems, and they serve a very different role. Using this as a justification for cooldown mechanics just does not work - it's like saying you won't have weapon mods in a shooter because the player can get different types of guns. Even then, some overlap between two systems is often advisable if only for reasons of verisimilitude (i.e. "I want to be Aqua Man").

Edited October 3, 2012 by sea

[Osvir]

Alright. So let us assume for the present that heal is not the issue. What about Summoned creatures, one shot kill spells (Wail of the Banshee?) something even worse like Shadow simulacrum which you can spam per battle? I am hoping such things are completely absent then, other wise I foresee a clear trail of munchkin crumbs in my merry adventurous path along the game .

Well, that is a good question: should spells of that power (mass save or die, enormous damage sink summons) be in the spellcaster's arsenal, period? I know some players do want "omnipotent" (to use one poster's words) wizards.

 

Oh boy, am I one of them. So I assume that wizards will be casting standard buffs and magic missiles only and not anything DnD worthy in order for of this system to work.

 

Would it be a bad idea at this moment to consider other systems where more powerful but otherwise limited wizards are allowed? That does seem too spectacular from a balanced game point of view, that I must agree.

 

How about different types/presentation of Mage's completely? Some are "Wandslingers" throwing lower level spells in quantity, weaker of course. Another strand of Mage where they need to be more conservative because their spells pack much more of a punch, but are limited to only a few "charges"?

[serch]

allmighty bookworms? hell-no

[Merin]

Do you just disagree with the whole concept of managing resources across fights then? I'm curious as to what your stance is on healing potions.

No. I haven't though a tremendous amount about healing points, but that brings up an interesting parallel resource management behavior in RPGs. I've seen (and talked to) innumerable gamers who say they end games with inventories full of consumables: potions, wands, scrolls, etc. The most commonly cited reason they give is that they don't know when is/isn't a good time to use them. Also, because they often have no idea when they might get more, they don't want to run out. It's sort of the inverse problem of rest spamming.

 

Absolutely. Oh, sweet Joss Whedon, yes this.

 

I never use potions or consumables because I'm always worried about running out of them.

 

I'd honestly forgotten why I'd stopped using consumables in games long ago - but this is it. I was terrified of not having enough or using them at the wrong time and wasting my money on them, so I never got them or just sold them off.

 

That's after I stopped just hoarding them, just in case.

 

So much this. I guess it made me a better player in the sense that I learned to do without.

 

I don't think it was until like DA:O that I actually looked to using them, as healing magic was so weak in combat and you could actually craft the potions... and this was on a second playthrough, as the first one I went to the Dalish Camp last so I didn't have access to elf roots!

[metiman]

Personally I would be absolutely thrilled with a game that had the exact same combat as either BG2, IWD, or even PS:T combined with a compelling story. I dont' need some kind of nextgen improvement for people who find that gameplay too tedious. Overall I defintely did not and do not find it tedious. To me nothing has changed for the better in terms of game design. Maybe in terms of graphics but the infinity engine was adequate for me in terms of graphics. To this day I am still replaying BG2 regularly. Other than ToEE I have never found a game with a better combat system. Obviously not everyone is going to agree of course and there are clearly sort of two factions at least here in the forums. I'm fairly confident that the faction that hates most modern games and hates Bioware's recent games (need I say more) mostly prefers the older style combat despite it not being 100% perfect for everyone. Is there any system that is? Certainly by popularity any recent game by Bioware or Bethesda would make any of these mechanics pale in terms of popularity. And MMORPGs mechanics even more so. That is if this is a sort of popularity contest, which perhaps it is at least to some extent. But if that is the case then there really is no answer and probably never will be.

[ogrezilla]

I personally don't mind if mages aren't super crazy powerful with their top spells, but I don't want my mage to basically just be an archer shooting magic.

[J.E. Sawyer]

So Josh, I admit I am getting a bit confused here - you do support all spells automatically regenerating a set time after combat resolution?

Not particularly. What I've been consistently saying is that in the IE games, most players did regenerate their spells (through rest) after the end of combat, if not after the end of one combat, usually after two or three. We have some players in this thread insisting that they never do that. I'm not doing to dispute them, but I certainly know what I've watched players actually do (rest constantly and backtrack to rest constantly).

 

Oh boy, am I one of them. So I assume that wizards will be casting standard buffs and magic missiles only and not anything DnD worthy in order for of this system to work.

I don't know why you would assume that. There are hundreds of spells in A/D&D that run the gamut of power between Sleep and Wail of the Banshee, even at high levels.