Automatic regeneration of hit points during combat

[teknoman2]

I think that stamina damage is not when you get hit. The *hit* part is the damage on health while stamina is what you dodge\absorb(moving so the sword don't hit the lungs)\deflect. A gun-shot or an arrow will probably be mostly health damage.

health and stamina loss are indipendent of one another. however you always lose more stamina than health when you are hit.

to make an example: if in real life you get shot at a non vital spot, you will not die imediatelly (in game terms you will lose 40-50% of your hp) but you will lose most of your strength due to the pain and the shock of the impact and will fall to the ground semi conscious (you will lose 90% or more of your stamina), unless you have a high pain tolerance, exelent physical conditioning and an iron will (or are on drugs), in which case you will be able to keep focus and control of your body (meaning you will have 30-40% stamina left)

[Nixl]

Based on the quote above, attacks provide two types of damage, HP damage and stamina damage. Stamina seems to be a pain threshold or a knockdown mechanic.

 

On its own, I do not dislike stamina, but I would prefer if they added additional factors such as dodge chances, hit accuracy, and spell sucess. That way reckless tactics or long fights become progressively harder.

[Captain Shrek]

I think that stamina damage is not when you get hit. The *hit* part is the damage on health while stamina is what you dodge\absorb(moving so the sword don't hit the lungs)\deflect. A gun-shot or an arrow will probably be mostly health damage.

health and stamina loss are indipendent of one another. however you always lose more stamina than health when you are hit.

to make an example: if in real life you get shot at a non vital spot, you will not die imediatelly (in game terms you will lose 40-50% of your hp) but you will lose most of your strength due to the pain and the shock of the impact and will fall to the ground semi conscious (you will lose 90% or more of your stamina), unless you have a high pain tolerance, exelent physical conditioning and an iron will (or are on drugs), in which case you will be able to keep focus and control of your body (meaning you will have 30-40% stamina left)

 

Just to point out that realism has nothing to do with it. You don't magically regenerate stamina when hit in the stomach with a blade and then running away from battle for a while. Only in games like COD:MW2 such things are considered tactics though.

[Uomoz]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

[Captain Shrek]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

 

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes.

[Uomoz]

In real life? Well we are talking about people on the battlefield..

 

It's a given that Healers in this game will heal this stamina: hence morale boosters, warcries, spells that lighten the pain. Mind though, I see you point!

 

The matter of fact is: Devs want some form of in-fight-depleting endurance stat that would be the thing that resets after each fight (+ low level spells). Something that recovers like breath after a long run. I think this resource will be pretty much strategic during fight (I think it will regen very slowly, so that you have to manage the "healing" of it like it was in IE games). I think that kiting won't be a viable tactic, given the slow regen and possibility of opportunity attacks, at best it will be as "useful" as it was in IE games.

[ComMcNeil]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

 

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes.

 

actually this is a good point, from the realistic route of course - in combat, adrenaline may still the pain, but after the adrenaline is out of your system, you feel every bit of the wounds you are caused...

 

question now is, do they want to go they complete realistic route, or just say, stamina is the immediate exhaustion, nothing more

[Captain Shrek]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

 

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes.

 

actually this is a good point, from the realistic route of course - in combat, adrenaline may still the pain, but after the adrenaline is out of your system, you feel every bit of the wounds you are caused...

 

question now is, do they want to go they complete realistic route, or just say, stamina is the immediate exhaustion, nothing more

In my view relaism is NOT necessary at all. I can spare realism if that offers more tactical combat.

[teknoman2]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

 

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes.

are you trying to troll? they already said that stamina is restored through magic and skills or items. it doesnt auto regenerate during combat. a barbarian can go into rage mode and forget his pain. a fighter can drink a drug that numbs his pain. a priest can use a spell to help with the pain and so on. all that is represented in the game by losing or gaining stamina. and since it is a game and not a medieval combat simulator, after the fight you get back your stamina. however i would like to see stamina or other stats being affected by the missing hp

[Captain Shrek]

snip

I would be only happy if stamina is not restored automatically as it should be apparent.

 

Although:

 

Stamina represents how much general abuse a character can take before falling unconscious. Characters lose it quickly and regain it relatively rapidly, even without assistance

[teknoman2]

"relatively" can mean a lot of things. it could range from a regeneration of 1 point per second to 1 point per minute to instant full recovery at the end of the battle but no regeneration in the combat and so on. also there will probably be painkiller potions in the game and every class will have at least 1 skill that restores some stamina.

the barbarian for example can go berserk and stop losing stamina for a bit.

[Captain Shrek]

"relatively" can mean a lot of things. it could range from a regeneration of 1 point per second to 1 point per minute to instant full recovery at the end of the battle but no regeneration in the combat and so on. also there will probably be painkiller potions in the game and every class will have at least 1 skill that restores some stamina.

the barbarian for example can go berserk and stop losing stamina for a bit.

 

As I said: Right now it sounds like it will be regenerating during combat, If and when it is clarified that it is not so I will be happy.

 

But since you said this: I assume you do not like regenerating (during combat) stamina either?

[Jarrakul]

So, I'd a tad confused as to why you folks are against regenerating health. Not that I don't see the arguments (I listed quite a few of them myself in my previous post), I just don't see a lot of reasons being given. Is it realism? Because a) that's secondary to gameplay, and b) regenerating health will promote the types of "clash and retreat" tactics that are common in real life (at least from my own experiences with fencing and martial arts). Also, taking 47 stabwounds before you die isn't exactly realistic either. Stamina at least carries the implication that you managed to avoid most of the hit, suffering only slight bruising or a small cut or something. Or are you concerned that battles will turn into kite-fests? I share your concern, but there are alternative ways to address that issue (see my previous post for one potential example).

 

Now, I also see a lot of people complaining about regenerating health in modern shooters. It's important to remember that the ability to take cover (whether implemented in a specific cover system or not) is an essential part of the "regenerating health" experience in these games. If there's little or no cover to take, as will almost certainly be the case in PE, regenerating health becomes much more difficult to abuse. Sure, you can body block with your companions, but then they'll take damage. That's an actual trade-off.

[Uomoz]

Personally, I don't like Halo like regeneration but I highly doubt that this will be the case. Come on, you heard them, they want recreate the feeling of those games, I think you can trust them on this. If there will be differences in the gameplay they'll retain the same flow of those old games. I think that a standard combat will be VERY similar to IE games. They are focusing on changing the after and before of battle, and I completely agree on that.

[Captain Shrek]

They are focusing on changing the after and before of battle, and I completely agree on that.

 

Unfortunately I don't agree on that.

 

Because IE games did not do cooldowns which as has been mentioned in earlier posts on this thread boils down to spamming your best spell in every encounter.

[Jarrakul]

Shrek, from what the devs are saying, your most powerful spells won't be on cooldown. They'll be tied to resting. It's only the weak spells that are on cooldown. So yeah, you can cast a bunch of spells, but choosing when to use your best spells will still be an important strategic decision.

 

Also, except in a very few areas, there was nothing in IE preventing you from resting after each encounter. So, if you wanted, you could in fact spam your best spell every encounter. Not saying I like this, but don't hold up IE as an example of something it's not.

[Captain Shrek]

Shrek, from what the devs are saying, your most powerful spells won't be on cooldown. They'll be tied to resting. It's only the weak spells that are on cooldown. So yeah, you can cast a bunch of spells, but choosing when to use your best spells will still be an important strategic decision.

 

Also, except in a very few areas, there was nothing in IE preventing you from resting after each encounter. So, if you wanted, you could in fact spam your best spell every encounter. Not saying I like this, but don't hold up IE as an example of something it's not.

 

very nice. Except the spell do indeed regen after every combat. Can't find the source now. Take my word for it or not.

 

As for IE:

 

You know what, you are absolutely correct. Which is why I made this post:

 

This is an excellent analysis.

 

 

I would add some points:

 

 

Irrespective of a game type, it is important that the game be balanced for all the play-styles the game allows and for those players that the game is targeting. It makes no sense to make game with (arbitrarily) hard combat for casual players (e.g. players of Farmville). Also, the game should not contain any elements that ANNOY the player, ruining his enjoyment (unnecessarily long quests like in NWN2, GATHER YOUR PARTY, trash mobs of skeletons, zombies and shadows etc).

 

 

One of the real tasks of the game designer I believe (since I am NOT a developer) would be balancing the challenge and the annoyance. It is is easy to confuse the two if one is not very bright. For example IWD2 was MEANT to be a hack and slash game with challenging combat. I had tough enemies and required smart planning of tactics before engaging in fighting or being punished for mistakes. This made playing the game satisfying.

 

 

As opposed to that NWN2 had surreptitiously large number of dungeons full of unnecessary enemies just so to find that you had to endure another dungeon to complete the main objective (Old own well anyone?).

 

 

This separation is necessary to make the game interesting. Please understand that there IS NO RESTRICTION ON THE IDEA that a hack and slash game have NO real story. In fact a well designed hack and slash game with good story is the most desirable kind of game from a general perspective. I am sure that nobody would have complained that a great game like Escape from tournament planet would only be benefited by great combat.

 

 

With this thing in mind we can discuss the system of stamina and health.

 

 

The question is, who is being addressed by this game?

 

 

Obsidian has announced that they want the IE game audience.

 

 

IE games were characteristic by good combat and great story. I am not talking about a particular mechanics like RtwP but rather the general feel of challenge provided by games like BGs and IWDs all the while experiencing great story of PST.

 

 

There is no doubt in my mind (neither should there be in yours) that these games were NOT PARAGONS OF GAMING. Yeah. Sacrilege. Bring on the stones and the sticks.

 

 

These games did suffer from numerous faults and ridding them would only improve them. "Where is the problem with such as assertion?", you ask. The problem, in my view lies in understanding that the broken mechanics (part of it) of these games was easily repairable and had no need to be replaced or removed.

 

 

A frequently cited problem of IE games is rest-spamming.

 

 

It is quite easy to realize that such problem can be quite decently solved by simply managing the combat encounters more intelligently than whining about how that is detrimental to the game. If the game is designed in a way so that the player party has to move from encounter to encounter (until you reach a safe spot) without an opportunity to rest in between, there would be no rest-spamming. Some might feel that this is too tough. Not so. It is simply made challenging by adding enough resources after every encounter that are just necessary to win the next encounter but still keeping it challenging. IWDs did this quite well. This would allow challenge (NOT frustration or annoyance) to be experienced only enhancing the game.

 

 

The second problem cited often is save-scumming:

 

 

In my view this is the strangest complaint playing a computer game. In a PnP game (to which a lot of people draw unfair comparison to cRPGs) the DM provides a flexible scaffold to play within the game, so that player misfortune (through bad die rolls) is mitigated unless he is playing terribly. A computer game is also a scaffold but a rigid one. That means good tactics but bad luck may result in losing huge lot of effort. This is solved by saving the game. If the encounters are designed as described above, there would BE NO WAY TO EXPLOIT SAVE-RELAOD system. This is a an easier and an elegent solution compared to a complete overhaul which could result in broken mechanics like so many non IE cRPG classics.

 

 

I believe that the system proposed here for stamina and health is a result of these considerations gone off track (trying to avoid rest-spamming or save-scumming). There is NO reason to get rid of a non-broken system in IE games which is simply a victim of poor design of encounters.

[Jarrakul]

Shrek:

 

What you've heard about spells is apparently contrary to what I've heard. I suppose only time will tell, then. I hope I'm right, as full spell recovery after each fight eliminates an important strategic element. In that, I agree with you.

 

That is a very interesting post. I agree with you on many points. Not all, though.

 

First, I would argue that, while limited resting will satisfactorily eliminate the rest spam problem, the stamina/health system offers more than that. The ability to combine long-term strategic elements with the short-term tactical potential that regenerating health provides (as each fight can now be individually challenging) is very exciting. I do hope they implement limited resting, as the stamina/health system does nothing at all to address the problems that limitless resting creates. But I also want the health/stamina system.

 

Second, I don't see how your suggested encounter layout would eliminate save-scumming. Perhaps you're saying that the long-term nature of encounter strings (the spaces between rests) would make save-scumming less useful? You're right, but only sort of. At any given time, you either have enough resources remaining to win the next encounter or you don't. If you have enough, you can still keep reloading until you win. Save scumming still exists. If you don't have enough resources, you're doomed, which is just frustrating and not at all fun. In fact, in this case, the ability to reload an earlier save is the only thing that will keep you playing the game. In this case, save scumming not only still exists, it becomes necessary to progress. So I don't see how your proposed encounter setup would discourage save scumming (incidentally, I don't think stamina/health will either, though it will help to reduce the incidence of the necessary case).

[Uomoz]

So you want corridor-like battle areas with forced order of fights?

 

Man.

[Captain Shrek]

Shrek:

 

What you've heard about spells is apparently contrary to what I've heard. I suppose only time will tell, then. I hope I'm right, as full spell recovery after each fight eliminates an important strategic element. In that, I agree with you.

 

That is a very interesting post. I agree with you on many points. Not all, though.

 

First, I would argue that, while limited resting will satisfactorily eliminate the rest spam problem, the stamina/health system offers more than that. The ability to combine long-term strategic elements with the short-term tactical potential that regenerating health provides (as each fight can now be individually challenging) is very exciting. I do hope they implement limited resting, as the stamina/health system does nothing at all to address the problems that limitless resting creates. But I also want the health/stamina system.

 

 

Well to be perfectly clear, I am NOT against Stamina + health system at all. I think there I agree with you completely. I would like a stamina resource that modulates the short terms use of abilities. I am only and only against the regeneration that is continuous. I believe that regen is for action (twitch based) games, which are also interesting and fun; to give the example of Dark Messiah.

 

 

Second, I don't see how your suggested encounter layout would eliminate save-scumming. Perhaps you're saying that the long-term nature of encounter strings (the spaces between rests) would make save-scumming less useful? You're right, but only sort of. At any given time, you either have enough resources remaining to win the next encounter or you don't. If you have enough, you can still keep reloading until you win. Save scumming still exists. If you don't have enough resources, you're doomed, which is just frustrating and not at all fun. In fact, in this case, the ability to reload an earlier save is the only thing that will keep you playing the game. In this case, save scumming not only still exists, it becomes necessary to progress. So I don't see how your proposed encounter setup would discourage save scumming (incidentally, I don't think stamina/health will either, though it will help to reduce the incidence of the necessary case).

 

Save scumming, to me, implies save-reloading until you have achieved a perfect result. That system is still in action in the design where you loose anything until rest (like Health in this game). This you can get rid of with checkpoints which will ruin the fun of gaming on a PC as it can lead to frustration for starting off way back. This is a problem that will NEVER go away unless you implement complete regeneration of all resource post combat; but that is bad.

 

I think the kind of save-reloading which allows you to address battle tactically is NOT bad at all. I mean this:

 

If a battle was really really hard and you said after it was done: Oh boy, I want to play that again because it was fun and I think I can do it even better! I think then you have achieved real tactical challenge in design.

 

What can be done to minimize the absolute abuse of such systems is what I am tackling here. I think that IE games can get rid of most of the save reload "scumming" problems by simply designing combat so that you are always challenged extensively and you WILL have to deplete resources in each combat and still you can always find enough resources at the end of it to go on resolutely.

 

Since such a simple (!??) system will not allow you to have any advantage after a successful battle that is worth considering reloading will become unnecessary. It will still reward good tactics.

[Jarrakul]

When you say things like "but that is bad", without offering any explanation of why it's bad, I tend to wince. Very few things are as simple as that. Full regeneration out of combat certainly isn't. It allows every fight to be a true challenge on its own. That's awesome. It also eliminates the long-term strategic element. That's less awesome. Stamina regenerating outside of combat allows for a middle ground. I think that's pretty cool. I admit, however, that it might end up being the worst of both worlds, with just enough long-term impact to be annoying but not enough strategic potential to be interesting. I doubt that'll happen, but it could. I'd rather take the gamble, because if any games are going to gamble, it's gonna have to be the ones that aren't leashed to publishers.

 

If you think regen can be fun in some games, why do you think it won't work in PE? Obviously games are different, but what element of an IE-style RPG will make in-combat regeneration unusually problematic? Or, if you prefer, what element of twitch-based games makes regeneration work? It seems to me that the ability to pull back one party member to heal offers more tactical options (body blocking, cost/benefit analysis of retreat, etc), not less.

 

Incidentally, save-scumming (in any sense of the term) is not a major concern of mine. I really don't think it's a problem. That said, you said something interesting.

 

What can be done to minimize the absolute abuse of such systems is what I am tackling here. I think that IE games can get rid of most of the save reload "scumming" problems by simply designing combat so that you are always challenged extensively and you WILL have to deplete resources in each combat and still you can always find enough resources at the end of it to go on resolutely.

 

The combination of always depleting resources in each combat but always having enough to continue is a difficult one. Players have different skill levels, and so will deplete different amounts of resources in each fight. I suppose by "finding" you might mean from drops and such, which makes the problem easier, but I can't say I'm a fan of consumable-based balance. It really just makes the entire game into "can I avoid using these long enough to make the final boss trivial?", which isn't fun. So you have to have enough of your own resources (use-limited but renewable) to tackle the next fight. And it seems to be that the health/stamina system, with stamina recovering out of combat, is the best system for this. It simply provides more fudge room for the game designers by allowing limited post-combat recovery. Are you opposed to this? I'm not honestly sure at this point what you want to see in the game.

 

Regarding my claim about how spells worked, I apparently got that information from update #16 with Tim Cain. Tim said it was still very up-in-the-air at that point, but that's the system he proposed (little stuff on cooldown, big stuff requires rest). If you have a more recent source, I'd love to see it.

[Captain Shrek]

When you say things like "but that is bad", without offering any explanation of why it's bad, I tend to wince. Very few things are as simple as that. Full regeneration out of combat certainly isn't. It allows every fight to be a true challenge on its own. That's awesome. It also eliminates the long-term strategic element. That's less awesome. Stamina regenerating outside of combat allows for a middle ground. I think that's pretty cool. I admit, however, that it might end up being the worst of both worlds, with just enough long-term impact to be annoying but not enough strategic potential to be interesting. I doubt that'll happen, but it could. I'd rather take the gamble, because if any games are going to gamble, it's gonna have to be the ones that aren't leashed to publishers.

 

 

I am not against innovation. I am just considering the following:

 

18 months + 11 Races + Dungeon with 14 levels + new setting + new lore + new combat system + Obsidian's amazing reputation for balanced combat = Everything will go well.

 

 

As to why it is bad.

 

To have all resources per encounter is making all encounters trivial as you can always have all the resources you want ready; kind if like rest -"spamming" in the IE games. it is the same thing, rest removed. This system, mentioned to have created to oppose it, does it even more blatantly.

 

If you think regen can be fun in some games, why do you think it won't work in PE? Obviously games are different, but what element of an IE-style RPG will make in-combat regeneration unusually problematic? Or, if you prefer, what element of twitch-based games makes regeneration work? It seems to me that the ability to pull back one party member to heal offers more tactical options (body blocking, cost/benefit analysis of retreat, etc), not less.

 

 

I am sorry I can not engage in this particular discussion. I agree saying it is a cop-out, but I believe that a discussion about genres are hardly dealt in one post. You can happily cross this point off. I was hoping to appeal to some sense one gets after playing such games, but I freely admit that it is not a mature way of doing so.

 

 

The combination of always depleting resources in each combat but always having enough to continue is a difficult one. Players have different skill levels, and so will deplete different amounts of resources in each fight. I suppose by "finding" you might mean from drops and such, which makes the problem easier, but I can't say I'm a fan of consumable-based balance. It really just makes the entire game into "can I avoid using these long enough to make the final boss trivial?", which isn't fun. So you have to have enough of your own resources (use-limited but renewable) to tackle the next fight. And it seems to be that the health/stamina system, with stamina recovering out of combat, is the best system for this. It simply provides more fudge room for the game designers by allowing limited post-combat recovery. Are you opposed to this? I'm not honestly sure at this point what you want to see in the game.

 

 

I am sorry; I will never buy this argument that there are players of different skill level and encounters need to adjust for them. That is why toggles of difficulty are for. Make them an option and the NORMAL mode can have challenging combat as described.

 

Regarding my claim about how spells worked, I apparently got that information from update #16 with Tim Cain. Tim said it was still very up-in-the-air at that point, but that's the system he proposed (little stuff on cooldown, big stuff requires rest). If you have a more recent source, I'd love to see it.

 

I understand that the system is not finalized. But the stuff about cooldown is my impression from talking to Josh here, from other posts where he has claimed that cooldowns are not yet dropped and general statement spread about the system. I was never the stalker variety hence I did not gather them diligently. My mistake.

[Jarrakul]

I am not against innovation. I am just considering the following:

 

18 months + 11 Races + Dungeon with 14 levels + new setting + new lore + new combat system + Obsidian's amazing reputation for balanced combat = Everything will go well.

 

Every game is kind of like this, really. But I see your point. Still, I don't see this system as particularly more difficult to balance than any other. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems simple enough to me. Sure, some parts will be harder, but others will be easier.

 

As to why it is bad.

 

To have all resources per encounter is making all encounters trivial as you can always have all the resources you want ready; kind if like rest -"spamming" in the IE games. it is the same thing, rest removed. This system, mentioned to have created to oppose it, does it even more blatantly.

 

Having all your resources doesn't make an encounter trivial. It makes it different. Easier, if the encounter is the same, but if the encounter is designed with your full resources in mind, it can be very difficult indeed. Again, I cite my own D&D experience, in which my players generally only get in fights every few days. And yet it isn't at all difficult to design things so that they just barely scrape by, even though they're at full resources. In fact, this is much easier than designing for the slow resource drain that repeated battles create. So if I can do it, why can't Obsidian?

 

I am sorry I can not engage in this particular discussion. I agree saying it is a cop-out, but I believe that a discussion about genres are hardly dealt in one post. You can happily cross this point off. I was hoping to appeal to some sense one gets after playing such games, but I freely admit that it is not a mature way of doing so.

 

This actually makes me very sad. You argue well, clearly have well-formed opinions, and I'd love to know what you think makes regeneration work better in twitch-based games than in IE-style games. Regardless, if you don't think you can explain, I suppose I'll have to live with that. It's pretty disappointing, though.

 

I am sorry; I will never buy this argument that there are players of different skill level and encounters need to adjust for them. That is why toggles of difficulty are for. Make them an option and the NORMAL mode can have challenging combat as described.

 

I had hope you wouldn't resort to that argument. Yes, that is what difficulty levels are for. In broad strokes, anyway. But even players of the same general skill are not identical. Some are better, others are worse. Some are only better at some types of encounters. Some use potions and such more than others (I, for example, tend to reload a half dozen times so I don't have to use one healing potion). As a game designer, you have to account for these variations, or you will fail. Difficulty settings are helpful in this regard, but they are insufficient to account for the sheer levels of variation. And as such, you need fudge room, even if you're perfect at your job (and if you aren't, fudge room only helps more). Would you argue otherwise?

 

I understand that the system is not finalized. But the stuff about cooldown is my impression from talking to Josh here, from other posts where he has claimed that cooldowns are not yet dropped and general statement spread about the system. I was never the stalker variety hence I did not gather them diligently. My mistake.

 

Obviously I don't know about your interactions with Josh. It's entirely possible that your information is better than mine. That said, cooldowns are not mutually exclusive with daily use limitations. Indeed, they could coexist on the same ability, or some abilities could be solely cooldown-based while others were solely use-limited. Regardless, I was merely intending to cite my sources, and see if you could provide me with any additional information. What they've said isn't really all that relevant to the question of which system is better, which is what's actually under debate here. We seem to be in agreement that Tim's loose proposal sounds more fun.

[Bonecrusher]

The part of "hit on the stomach" is the irrecuperable hp loss. The part of "this wound hurts as hell" is the stamina damage.

 

Which in real life would GET WORSE not better in a matter of minutes.

 

real life is very different than games.

 

in real life, if you get stabbed to chest by a dagger or a blade, you take a wound. the wound starts bleeding, you will bleed to death (start to lose hp continously) until you close that wound somehow (bandages, stitches, similar medical treatments). this wound will be closed after a specific time (a very shallow wound will be closed in a day, but a deep wound need weeks). when you get stabbed or shot, the damage can also make you feint and fall down. even after the wound closed, there can be temporal or permanent damage to your organs. even worse, you can lose your organs (permanent Stat damage, and side effects to your character) because of this wound.

 

if you get punched by someone or mauled with a mace, you will not get a wound (non-hp damage) but your bones can be broken (again, Stat damage and appropriate side effects). simple bruises and muscle damage can be very painful (stamina/endurance loss) and recovery can be a long time. bone damages are also very painful, and you might be wrapped with plaster for weeks, months and even years. if your bones break, you also need to think about nerve, tendon and muscle damages (Stat damage, and restricted movement).

 

real life anatomical situations can be really hard to simulate for games.

you must to dumb down those things, one way or another.

 

white wolf settings creates a health system for their games. bruised, hurt (-1), injured (-1), wounded (-2), mauled (-2), crippled (-5), incapacitated. you will get penalties according to what kind of damage you get.

 

d&d settings have more dumbed down health system. you will get multiplication of hp each level (10 times more hp (blood) at lvl 10). you will get stabbed, zapped, burned, mauled, but you will have no penalty even if your hp decreases to 1. you will fight perfectly with this 1 hp. if you lose that hp too, you will suddenly fall down.

d&d has another weirdness, after you get wounded over and over, if you rest 6 hours, you will miraculously fully recover into perfect condition. however during day time, even if you are just relaxing in your home, you will get no hp regeneration in those 18 hours.

 

each tabletop p&p game have their different health systems.

but most mmorpgs keep d&d formula because it is more widestream and famous. and of course, it is also easy to implement into the game.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Bonecrusher

[Captain Shrek]

 

Every game is kind of like this, really. But I see your point. Still, I don't see this system as particularly more difficult to balance than any other. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems simple enough to me. Sure, some parts will be harder, but others will be easier.

 

 

Obsdian should plan to tackle more reasonable goals. DA2 is a recent fiasco afterall.

 

So if I can do it, why can't Obsidian?

 

Excellent question. Please ask it to whoever designed the trash mobs in NWN2 and the combat system in AP. Although I *must* admit SOZ was the jump in the right direction.

 

 

 

 

 

This actually makes me very sad. You argue well, clearly have well-formed opinions, and I'd love to know what you think makes regeneration work better in twitch-based games than in IE-style games. Regardless, if you don't think you can explain, I suppose I'll have to live with that. It's pretty disappointing, though.

 

 

Believe it or not I will rectify this particular discussion related issue soon enough.

 

 

 

I had hope you wouldn't resort to that argument. Yes, that is what difficulty levels are for. In broad strokes, anyway. But even players of the same general skill are not identical. Some are better, others are worse. Some are only better at some types of encounters. Some use potions and such more than others (I, for example, tend to reload a half dozen times so I don't have to use one healing potion). As a game designer, you have to account for these variations, or you will fail. Difficulty settings are helpful in this regard, but they are insufficient to account for the sheer levels of variation. And as such, you need fudge room, even if you're perfect at your job (and if you aren't, fudge room only helps more). Would you argue otherwise?

 

 

No matter what you do you will never please everybody. Hey, just look at me, right?

 

We seem to be in agreement that Tim's loose proposal sounds more fun.

 

Undoubtedly. I will take this opportunity to say that my favorite combat design for a non-action RPG is Fallout.