[Merged] Cooldowns 2.0

[MReed]

I don't necessarily oppose punishing the player twice (or more) for sucking in combat -- what I oppose is punishing the player with tedium for failing twice in combat. The ultimate expression of tedium is the "twiddle your thumbs for N hours while cooldown timers expire", but trekking back through empty areas to heal and then returning is in the same bucket.

 

Games should never deliberately inflict tedium on the player. Sometimes tedium is unavoidable for various reasons (realism, technical limitations, and so forth), and that's OK, but it shouldn't be a deliberate design feature. Games are supposed to be fun, not work, after all.

[Osvir]

I don't necessarily oppose punishing the player twice (or more) for sucking in combat -- what I oppose is punishing the player with tedium for failing twice in combat. The ultimate expression of tedium is the "twiddle your thumbs for N hours while cooldown timers expire", but trekking back through empty areas to heal and then returning is in the same bucket.

 

Games should never deliberately inflict tedium on the player. Sometimes tedium is unavoidable for various reasons (realism, technical limitations, and so forth), and that's OK, but it shouldn't be a deliberate design feature. Games are supposed to be fun, not work, after all.

 

But games are, in themselves , a kind of a job/work (all depends on how you look at it). I can't think the last time I played League of Legends not thinking it is work.

EDIT: What I'm talking about with the work thing is... I'm a rather good player at this point so to me I need plan out tactics before the game even start. Check my team members on loking.net, compare against the enemy team what kind of opposition we will have. How should I cheer up the team and support them verbally, socially and skillfully? (I play Janna Support or Riven Jungle)

 

The key here is to make "work fun and lasting", entertaining, the game space/world is supposed to be a place you as a player wants to continuously return too (replayability). Heroes of Might & Magic III is amazing, I love it, but I only play one game once every 6 months or so. I suggest either a difficulty option or blatantly an option/setting where you decide what type of progression the days have.

 

I believe one of the mods in Baldur's Gate adjusts the in-game hours, how fast they go by (This isn't Fast Forwarding in which everything moves along faster and everyone is walking at x4 of their movespeed, merely that the minutes it takes for one day to complete are either less or more. I don't think this would be too difficult to implement).

 

Either a day passed by in 2 real life hours In-Game, or perhaps you simply want it casually at 10 minutes.

One in which you, the player decides if you want a longer/tactical experience, or if you want a quicker faster more action oriented experience. Wherein the action oriented experience would lean more towards the IE & friends game (The classical RPG), the longer experience would appeal to those who want "More Hardcore" (I would categorize myself in both of those experiences to be honest).

Edited October 4, 2012 by Osvir

[Ondb]

The cool-downs are not evil or good by definition. It would really depends on how they are implemented in the game. I could just now create couple of examples of good cool-downs (at least for me). Lets assume that we have traditional spell system with 1-9 level spells which need to be memorized combined with individual spell cool-downs. Examples:

 

A, Low level wizard with 2-slots in Level 1 spell-book with following options

• Magic Missile - projectile with 5 magic damage. Cool-down 15 seconds
  
• Magic Orb - projectile with 10 magic damage. Possible Blind, slow , stun effect. Cool-down 2 minutes
  

If you fill your slots with two magic missile then you can cast this spell every 7-8 seconds. Or you could fill then with two magic orb. As low level wizard you will prefer probably Magic missile. As high level wizard I would probably pick magic orb ? If my high level wizard is solo-wizard I will still probably pick Magic missile.

 

B, Wizard with 2-slots in Level 5 spell-book with following options:

• Hold-Monster - holds up to 5 monster for 10 seconds. Cool-down 10 minutes
  
• Animate Dead - Creates undead-monster which will fight for you for 60 seconds. Cool-down 30 seconds.
  

Without any cool-down mechanic in place I would pick hold-monster any time. However with cooldown introduced I could pick 2 Animate Dead and create my personal army of dead....as i go. And its not easy to see what spells is best

 

C, High Level choose 1-slot in Level 9 spell-book with :

• Wail of Banshee - 150 magic damage to every enemy in 30m radius around caster. Cool-down 30 minutes.
  
• PowerWord-kill - 100 magic damage to single enemy. Cool-down 3 minutes.
  

What you will pick ? Its easy choose or not ?

 

Final comment:

Good implementation of cool-down system to individual spells can bring you new strategic layer to wizard and change obvious best spells for given level in D&D games to something else. Powerful spells are given bigger cool-downs, there can be spell with very sort cool-down (with intention to be used on regular basis). There can be big powerful area spells with less powerful brother in the same level. (As long as there is difference in cool-down, it can be balanced).

[Jaesun]

Then every battle is exactly the same. BORING. There is no Tactics, challenge or any sense of tension, like you DID experience in the IE games.

 

Did you ever play them?

[ogrezilla]

Then every battle is exactly the same. BORING. There is no Tactics, challenge or any sense of tension, like you DID experience in the IE games.

 

Did you ever play them?

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same.

 

I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Jaesun]

Then every battle is exactly the same. BORING. There is no Tactics, challenge or any sense of tension, like you DID experience in the IE games.

 

Did you ever play them?

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same.

 

I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge.

 

Even with explicitly designed encounters, to cover up such a horrible bland system, it would be boring. Period.

 

Seriously think about it. Imagine in BG you have access to EVERY SPELL (appropriate to your level) at EVERY encounter.

 

There is no meaningful tactics. There is no Challenge. Is boring. And there is NO sense of tension. It's just YAWN, next battle.

[ogrezilla]

Then every battle is exactly the same. BORING. There is no Tactics, challenge or any sense of tension, like you DID experience in the IE games.

 

Did you ever play them?

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same.

 

I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge.

 

Even with explicitly designed encounters, to cover up such a horrible bland system, it would be boring. Period.

 

Seriously think about it. Imagine in BG you have access to EVERY SPELL (appropriate to your level) at EVERY encounter.

 

There is no meaningful tactics. There is no Challenge. Is boring. And there is NO sense of tension. It's just YAWN, next battle.

In BG it would be boring because the game isn't designed around you having every spell. It removes the strategy of preparing the right spells, but it doesn't remove the tactics of using them properly. The game would just need to be designed differently to maintain tactics, challenge and tension.

 

Again, I like the strategy part of planning ahead. I don't want that system for this game.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Hypevosa]

Then every battle is exactly the same. BORING. There is no Tactics, challenge or any sense of tension, like you DID experience in the IE games.

 

Did you ever play them?

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters. The keys then are to design spells so there aren't "best" spells and to design encounters so they aren't all the same.

 

I'm not saying I want that design, but it can theoretically be done without removing tactics or challenge.

 

Even with explicitly designed encounters, to cover up such a horrible bland system, it would be boring. Period.

 

You're from the future? Please, tell me more.

[Valorian]

I strongly dislike systems where the resource (mana/soul energy/whatever) for casting spells or the spells themselves replenish on their own. I feel the same way about replenishing HP and stamina. That would be a waiting system.

 

A resting system allows much more flexibility. Certain places where you can't rest, being attacked by monsters while you rest, (hardcore) modes that limit the number of times you can rest during the game to increase the challenge etc.

 

Cooldowns are another thing. Spells should have individual cooldowns that take into account the power of the spell so that you can't spam all kinds of obliteration spells in a quick succession. You can look at it from a RP perspective; it would be too exhausting for your mage to cast such spells every second.

[Lady Evenstar]

So, another love it/hate it dichotomy? Instead of asking when and how a mechanism might be useful and whether or not another mechanism might serve that purpose better? I really don't get the passion. I can see hating particular implementations of cooldowns. But any possible implementation of cooldowns? It's like hating pencils because you had a bad experience in a voting booth.

 

And if I don't hate them, I must love them, be undecided, or feel we have no input to offer? I feel like I've wandered into Congress ....

[Ondb]

Did you ever play them?

 

There it is. Played all of them several time. Love the IE spell system. I would like to fix the obvious problems with it, not to redesign the whole system.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Ondb

[qstoffe]

I strongly dislike systems where the resource (mana/soul energy/whatever) for casting spells or the spells themselves replenish on their own. I feel the same way about replenishing HP and stamina. That would be a waiting system.

 

Agreed. Cooldowns lead to a waiting system were you come fully refreshed to every combat. That way the combats quickly become linear and boring.

 

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters.

 

This doesn't necessarily solve the problem with combat linearity. Switching between 3-4 top tier spells isn't what I would call enjoyable tactics. Being economical by casting lower tiered spells and saving the higher ones for later combats creates a much richer dynamic for variance in combat.

[metiman]

So, another love it/hate it dichotomy? Instead of asking when and how a mechanism might be useful and whether or not another mechanism might serve that purpose better? I really don't get the passion. I can see hating particular implementations of cooldowns. But any possible implementation of cooldowns? It's like hating pencils because you had a bad experience in a voting booth.

 

And if I don't hate them, I must love them, be undecided, or feel we have no input to offer? I feel like I've wandered into Congress ....

 

You haven't wandered into Congress, but you have wandered into an active war zone. Are you unsure of whose side you are on? Of your forum faction? Perhaps I can be of some service in this regard. Just list the cRPGs that you love and the cRPGs that you hate. Although, no matter what, you are in the pro-cooldown faction. On your side are the Dragon Age and MMO lovers among others. That's the lawful evil faction in case you were wondering.

[Grimlorn]

I don't necessarily oppose punishing the player twice (or more) for sucking in combat -- what I oppose is punishing the player with tedium for failing twice in combat. The ultimate expression of tedium is the "twiddle your thumbs for N hours while cooldown timers expire", but trekking back through empty areas to heal and then returning is in the same bucket.

 

Games should never deliberately inflict tedium on the player. Sometimes tedium is unavoidable for various reasons (realism, technical limitations, and so forth), and that's OK, but it shouldn't be a deliberate design feature. Games are supposed to be fun, not work, after all.

I disagree. Games shouldn't sit there and immerse you with combat 24/7. It just shifts to being more of an action RPG. I think it's ok to have some downtime. Yeah walking is tedious. But there hasn't really been a good idea yet except a vague notion of cooldowns. Cooldowns, I don't believe, have ever been done well.

 

I'm pretty sure all the old great RPGs had tedium of some sort. Games like DA2 don't have this stuff and look how it turned out. I'm saying a game should have it's ups and downs and most players don't realize this is good. It should punish the player for making mistakes, and that encourages the player to learn and adapt. It gives a sense of accomplishment. Judging by your post, you'd rather not have arrows or bullets because you could run out and then have to return to town to restock and that would be tedious.

 

Players (and I think devs) just think well here's some tedium. It's bad how do we get rid of it. You get rid of it be removing and simplifying the game and making it so there is no downtime and just combat all the time. Which means a shallow cooldown system to prevent the player from having to rest or return to town.

[ogrezilla]

I strongly dislike systems where the resource (mana/soul energy/whatever) for casting spells or the spells themselves replenish on their own. I feel the same way about replenishing HP and stamina. That would be a waiting system.

 

Agreed. Cooldowns lead to a waiting system were you come fully refreshed to every combat. That way the combats quickly become linear and boring.

 

unless the battles are designed so that you need different tactics for different encounters.

 

This doesn't necessarily solve the problem with combat linearity. Switching between 3-4 top tier spells isn't what I would call enjoyable tactics. Being economical by casting lower tiered spells and saving the higher ones for later combats creates a much richer dynamic for variance in combat.

like I said, you'd need a spell system that didn't have "best" spells.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ReyVagabond]

I like cooldowns and i like camping sites. and i Hate potions. potions is a awefull game mechanic.

 

I want a mix, for example, fighters in D&D 2.0 3.5, where kinda boring with close to non combat skills.

New Pc games like Guild Wars, have good sence of combat. fast an exiting GW 1 controling 7 companions,(yes in the last patchs you can use 7 companions) with plenty of action skills. For example i want o more slow paced tactical fight that GW1 but i feel that a good start to know how to use cooldows during an active fight.

 

in the other hand i want to manage other resourses like exaustions, i dont want to be able to go back to town, if i reach out of food or arrows i want to well your party will die so you better load and go back to Town sooner.

 

personaly the i rest after each encounter so my mage has all his spells is not the way to go for a computer game because it creates a down time.

 

I want a mix and match! Active combat with cooldows and some resorse maganagment with no Potions, and A rest sistem with food and other stuff to replenish long term resourse managment.

[ogrezilla]

I don't necessarily oppose punishing the player twice (or more) for sucking in combat -- what I oppose is punishing the player with tedium for failing twice in combat. The ultimate expression of tedium is the "twiddle your thumbs for N hours while cooldown timers expire", but trekking back through empty areas to heal and then returning is in the same bucket.

 

Games should never deliberately inflict tedium on the player. Sometimes tedium is unavoidable for various reasons (realism, technical limitations, and so forth), and that's OK, but it shouldn't be a deliberate design feature. Games are supposed to be fun, not work, after all.

I disagree. Games shouldn't sit there and immerse you with combat 24/7. It just shifts to being more of an action RPG. I think it's ok to have some downtime. Yeah walking is tedious. But there hasn't really been a good idea yet except a vague notion of cooldowns. Cooldowns, I don't believe, have ever been done well.

 

I'm pretty sure all the old great RPGs had tedium of some sort. Games like DA2 don't have this stuff and look how it turned out. I'm saying a game should have it's ups and downs and most players don't realize this is good. It should punish the player for making mistakes, and that encourages the player to learn and adapt. It gives a sense of accomplishment. Judging by your post, you'd rather not have arrows or bullets because you could run out and then have to return to town to restock and that would be tedious.

 

Players (and I think devs) just think well here's some tedium. It's bad how do we get rid of it. You get rid of it be removing and simplifying the game and making it so there is no downtime and just combat all the time. Which means a shallow cooldown system to prevent the player from having to rest or return to town.

removing tedium doesn't have to mean removing elements of the game. It could mean changing what was a tedious activity to an actual rewarding and valuable part of the game.

[Grimlorn]

This isn't a MMO. You control 6 characters at once, so using a MMO as an example for well done combat is terrible.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Grimlorn

[qstoffe]

You haven't wandered into Congress, but you have wandered into an active war zone. Are you unsure of whose side you are on? Of your forum faction? Perhaps I can be of some service in this regard. Just list the cRPGs that you love and the cRPGs that you hate. Although, no matter what, you are in the pro-cooldown faction. On your side are the Dragon Age and MMO lovers among others. That's the lawful evil faction in case you were wondering.

 

ROFL

 

like I said, you'd need a spell system that didn't have "best" spells.

 

Agreed but that would certainly be kind of dull since you need that extremly powerful spell once in a while too just to create the dynamic.

[Grimlorn]

I don't necessarily oppose punishing the player twice (or more) for sucking in combat -- what I oppose is punishing the player with tedium for failing twice in combat. The ultimate expression of tedium is the "twiddle your thumbs for N hours while cooldown timers expire", but trekking back through empty areas to heal and then returning is in the same bucket.

 

Games should never deliberately inflict tedium on the player. Sometimes tedium is unavoidable for various reasons (realism, technical limitations, and so forth), and that's OK, but it shouldn't be a deliberate design feature. Games are supposed to be fun, not work, after all.

I disagree. Games shouldn't sit there and immerse you with combat 24/7. It just shifts to being more of an action RPG. I think it's ok to have some downtime. Yeah walking is tedious. But there hasn't really been a good idea yet except a vague notion of cooldowns. Cooldowns, I don't believe, have ever been done well.

 

I'm pretty sure all the old great RPGs had tedium of some sort. Games like DA2 don't have this stuff and look how it turned out. I'm saying a game should have it's ups and downs and most players don't realize this is good. It should punish the player for making mistakes, and that encourages the player to learn and adapt. It gives a sense of accomplishment. Judging by your post, you'd rather not have arrows or bullets because you could run out and then have to return to town to restock and that would be tedious.

 

Players (and I think devs) just think well here's some tedium. It's bad how do we get rid of it. You get rid of it be removing and simplifying the game and making it so there is no downtime and just combat all the time. Which means a shallow cooldown system to prevent the player from having to rest or return to town.

removing tedium doesn't have to mean removing elements of the game. It could mean changing what was a tedious activity to an actual rewarding and valuable part of the game.

Yeah you can say this and it sounds good, but how do you implement it without a cooldown system and while keeping the game tactical. You can't think of a way. You can just say well lets replace the tedium in the game without removing elements. While we're at it, let's make everyone's favorite RPG in the whole genre. Empty words. Edited October 4, 2012 by Grimlorn

[Tale]

Games like DA2 don't have this stuff and look how it turned out.

Are you wishing to imply the problem with DA2 is a lack of tedium?

[ogrezilla]

There seems to be a lot of thinking along the lines of Bioware changed their games and those games were bad, therefor change is bad.

[Jaesun]

You haven't wandered into Congress, but you have wandered into an active war zone. Are you unsure of whose side you are on? Of your forum faction? Perhaps I can be of some service in this regard. Just list the cRPGs that you love and the cRPGs that you hate. Although, no matter what, you are in the pro-cooldown faction. On your side are the Dragon Age and MMO lovers among others. That's the lawful evil faction in case you were wondering.

 

I think you meant to say the Clergy of Myrkul faction.

[ogrezilla]

like I said, you'd need a spell system that didn't have "best" spells.

 

Agreed but that would certainly be kind of dull since you need that extremly powerful spell once in a while too just to create the dynamic.

 

I wouldn't want that system in this type of game. I'm just pointing out the flaws in her logic.

 

Yeah you can say this and it sounds good, but how do you implement it without a cooldown system and while keeping the game tactical. You can't think of a way. You can just say well lets replace the tedium in the game without removing elements. While we're at it, let's make everyone's favorite RPG in the whole genre. Empty words.

Arrows are now expensive and money is limited. I literally cannot afford to use a bow and arrow against every enemy in the game. Oh what's that? I can learn to craft my own arrows though? And even to salvage some of the arrows that are sticking out of all of my enemies?

 

And I just replaced the tedium of walking back and forth to get arrows all the time with legitimate strategic choices and potential challenge.

 

For spells, I'm not sure. I'm not a game designer. Limiting where I can rest would be a start.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ogrezilla

[qstoffe]

There seems to be a lot of thinking along the lines of Bioware changed their games and those games were bad, therefor change is bad.

 

Not at all. Many alternatives have been suggested here like various fatigue systems. I have a problem with cooldowns in specific because they have never worked in the past imo and so far I haven't heard of anything special that would make them better in this game.

Edited October 4, 2012 by qstoffe