Sawyerism Distilled - an interview with Josh Sawyer at Iron Tower Studio

[Tamerlane]

Or it was a worldbuilding thing where they didn't like that injury, sickness, and death were such minor incoveniences in a lot of other major fantasy games and they wanted to get away from that. The lack of a healer archetype would just be a side-effect of that.

 

Though it's more likely that they factored both those things into the decision.

[JFSOCC]

Guild Wars 2 did away with the healing class, and I think it did the game a service. (Despite me missing my ability to choose a monk)

If taking a certain class is a nobrainer, then that's not a good thing.

[Hormalakh]

Apparently the Priest class is more the "paladin" of old, and the paladin is more "Warlord." Just thought you guys should know. Stamina healing can be done by several different classes now. Priests, Paladins, Barbarians, etc.

[FlintlockJazz]

I don't have an issue, I was trying to clarify the points that I believe Josh was making. I was also responding to AwesomeOcelot. You should read more about what Josh thinks about attributes. I can't be bothered to look for them now. Check out Something Awesome forums too. He further expands on it.

 

I think he makes valid points.

 

Well, if you can't effectively verbalize what exactly you agree with, how can you expect people to put stock in what you are saying?

 

Hormalakh verbalizes fine as while I may not always agree with everything he says I always understand his point and where he is coming from, so maybe it's just your reading comprehension that is failing?

[Hormalakh]

Forgot about this thread. Now where was I?

 

Allow me to address your two points below

 

1.Your issue then is with the Charisma stat, not the speech skill? I see you have an "evolving" argument. Ok then.

 

The Charisma attritbute is one that is often poorly implemented in non-diplomatic situations. As a result, it can be a "dump stat." However, this is not always the case. I found BOTH the Charisma stat and the Speech skill to be important in Fallout. Thanks to Charisma-based party member limits and perk requirements, I never neglected the Charisma stat when making a Diplo character. I am not saying that implementation is the only one but games have existed where Charisma stats and speech skills have existed in harmony.

 

Pardon me a smidge - I am going to speculate just a bit here. They have focused on assuring that combat and noncombat advancement is separate. Because of this, It would seem strange for them to include a stat that would have no value in combat. If anything, I would assume all stats would be of equal value inside and outside of combat. Whatever stat they put in place of Charisma ("Drive," "Will," "Presence," etc etc) will most likely have both combat and noncmbat bonuses. As a result, you must not project your fears of the implementation of Charisma in past DnD titles to how it will function here. Until we know more about stats, we cannot presume to believe that the stat would become worthless should a speech skill or a set of speech skills be implemented.

 

I don't have a problem with either the Charisma or the speech skill, although I can see where Josh Sawyer is coming from. Usually Charisma and speech are employed for the same job: dialogue. Sometimes Charisma is used for other things like party limits, or barter, but usually, the Charisma boils down to a "speech skill check." I can see what you're saying about the Charisma stat and I would agree. I'm not sure what Josh is going to do about the "Charisma" attribute. I did point to an example where I think would work with both a Charisma attribute and a speech skill. See my previous posts on this thread. I think it's page 11. I wonder if our attributes will be completely different.

 

Josh says

Unrelated (sorta), but I thought Cadwallon's Attitudes system was kind of neat. They abstract their stats into Pugnacity, Style, Opportunism, Subtlety, and Discipline. Depending on the skill and its application, you can use different Attitudes at any given time. I think there may have also been rules in which characters had an "active" Attitude at any given time, sort of a modal setting that influenced what their character was focusing on. It took time to switch Attitudes and certain characters (like Diplomats) could switch Attitudes more quickly than others.

 

His point also comes from another thing that he said,

I don't like how most ability score/attribute systems are linked to certain class builds. That's something that some people in this thread have also criticized.

 

I believe ability scores are helpful for defining your character, but I want to set them up so they don't have an overbearing mechanical connection to gear use/your class (e.g. if you use normal melee weapons, raise Strength, if you play a wizard, max out Intelligence). I.e. I would like characters to arrange their ability scores for trade-offs that are meaningful for characters of all classes.

 

I do not entirely understand your second point. -snip-

I believe that when playing against a computer, when mechanics are not in place to reward "role-play", then we have games that we are making up. We're playing with dolls and puppets in our minds. This isn't necessarily wrong, and people can do that. But there are the other group of players who think that "LARPing" in a computer game is innane. I tend to agree with them.

 

Here is my source for the JESawyer quotes. http://forums.someth...40&pagenumber=6

 

PS. I could be completely incorrect in my views from where Josh is standing. I'll let him speak for himself - but these are the ideas that came to my mind when I read his words.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Hormalakh

[Lephys]

On Speech:

 

The "Speech" skill that just assumes your character's gonna say "the right thing" to get the "best outcome" is merely an oversimplification of Speech. If you want it, then cool. If you don't, then cool. But it is much simpler than most of the other systems in the game (imagine a "Combat" skill that, if high enough, allows you to instantly defeat your foe, with some cool animation being the equivalent of whatever-it-is-your-character-happens-to-say in the Speech skill realm.)

 

Character skill/progression is an integral part of the RPG experience, but it is only that. A part. Obviously that part serves no purpose if the player isn't given the option of how to use those character skills as tools. It would be Character Progressor 5: Advancement Afoot! The goal would simply be to allocate points in skills efficiently enough for your characters to play through a mildly-interactive story.

 

There's no reason those playing the game shouldn't get a system with depth that requires actual effort in dialogue to affect certain outcomes, with character stats/skills as a support, simply because some want their dialogue handled completely by their character. I'm not trying to be snide here. That's the argument, boiled down, because the difference between the two is the effort involved.

 

On the Staminealth system:

 

I'd just like to point out (because I don't think it has been yet, and if it has, I apologize) that there's been no mention of the limititations on your characters health or stamina pools. Josh only mentioned that the damage ratio they're starting with (based on what data they have so far, obviously, and will most likely test and tweak) will be 1-health:4-stamina. So, all we know is that, when you lose 4 stamina, you lose 1 health. How do we know that we won't have 1,000 health and 50 stamina?

 

We don't. And, once again, the baselessness of hard-number examples being used to express concerns rears its ugly head. Seriously, people, they're still very much developing the game. It's not as if they're almost done. There's absolutely no point in worrying so much over a system that is perfectly balanceable. We might as well express our concerns about the class system because all the classes could have the exact same skills. That possibility says nothing of a flaw in the class system itself. It would simply be a bad implementation.

 

Nothing inherently makes the proposed system a flawed system. It's all in the balancing, just as it is with any of the game's mechanics.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Lephys

[Shevek]

Hormalakh:

Those quotes are about two things:

 

1. Some strange rpg system which sounds like a collectible card game version of a speech minigame

2. The dangers of having dump stats and stat centric builds.

 

Neither of those points speaks to why the speech skill should be relegated to a dustbin. Please offer clear points when clear points are offered to you.

 

I would speak to your last point on LARPing but it makes no sense.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Shevek

[Dream]

Guild Wars 2 did away with the healing class, and I think it did the game a service. (Despite me missing my ability to choose a monk)

If taking a certain class is a nobrainer, then that's not a good thing.

 

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.

[Shevek]

I don't have an issue, I was trying to clarify the points that I believe Josh was making. I was also responding to AwesomeOcelot. You should read more about what Josh thinks about attributes. I can't be bothered to look for them now. Check out Something Awesome forums too. He further expands on it.

 

I think he makes valid points.

 

Well, if you can't effectively verbalize what exactly you agree with, how can you expect people to put stock in what you are saying?

 

Hormalakh verbalizes fine as while I may not always agree with everything he says I always understand his point and where he is coming from, so maybe it's just your reading comprehension that is failing?

 

It could be but, personally, I find the statements very convoluted and not very on point. By his own admission, he had not elucidated on his point and would do so later. His eventual response did not speak to the central thrust of our conversation. In general, he seems to back the notion of no speech skill but completely fails to point out why. Instead he very vaguely alluded to some other posts by Sawyer and those posts were only slightly related.

 

Earlier, he suggested that speech is bad because charisma is bad and therefore speech would make it worse. The sheer weakness of this argument, that an entire skillset should be removed because a stat we don't will be implemented may be implemented poorly... man,...I dunno what to say to that.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Shevek

[Hormalakh]

Well, alright. I'm glad I didn't waste my time on this yesterday.

[JFSOCC]

Guild Wars 2 did away with the healing class, and I think it did the game a service. (Despite me missing my ability to choose a monk)

If taking a certain class is a nobrainer, then that's not a good thing.

 

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

[Lephys]

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

 

Indeed. Which never really existed until someone decided it was a good idea to oversimplify everything down to classifications based on a handful of mathematical character attributes. 8P. But I digress...

 

 

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 is a perfectly valid point. However, it does not change the fact that healing is a very, very simple mechanic to base an entire class role around. I'm not saying it's stupid and completely pointless. It's obviously a functional mechanic, and has been around for a while. But, I believe it's a bit outdated, and there are more interesting ways of handling things than to make someone be a walking damage un-doer.

 

Despite your point about GW2's differences from a single-player party-based game, the reason for updating healing mechanics are the same. Time spent not-taking damage (including time spent preventing the enemy from even attacking, or killing the enemy quickly enough so that damage is no longer a concern while you heal back up) is far more exciting combat time than time spent undoing damage taken. At the very least, if a character/class is going to have to spend their time casting a spell, better that it's a sustained barrier that PREVENTS incoming damage to the party than a damage-undoing middle-man.

 

Methods of preventing/avoiding damage would never have made their way into games in the first place if healing was so much more interesting. There'd be no evasion, or barriers, or armor, or resistances, or stuns, etc. Combat would just be a math battle.

 

"This enemy deals 57 damage every 2.1 seconds, and I have a maximum health pool of 412HP. If my healer can heal for 100HP every 12 seconds... *whips out calculator*... yep, the overall ratio of my damage output to his, factoring in the healing, is good. I can win this."

 

That's pretty much what it got down to in MMOs, even though single-player games are typically a bit more interesting than that. But, it isn't at all necessary to have an entire class role that is healing. The same exact effect can be achieved through more interesting means. I think that's a valid basis for the proposed system.

[Dream]

Guild Wars 2 did away with the healing class, and I think it did the game a service. (Despite me missing my ability to choose a monk)

If taking a certain class is a nobrainer, then that's not a good thing.

 

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.

 

That is a perfectly valid point. However, it does not change the fact that healing is a very, very simple mechanic to base an entire class role around. I'm not saying it's stupid and completely pointless. It's obviously a functional mechanic, and has been around for a while. But, I believe it's a bit outdated, and there are more interesting ways of handling things than to make someone be a walking damage un-doer.

 

Despite your point about GW2's differences from a single-player party-based game, the reason for updating healing mechanics are the same. Time spent not-taking damage (including time spent preventing the enemy from even attacking, or killing the enemy quickly enough so that damage is no longer a concern while you heal back up) is far more exciting combat time than time spent undoing damage taken. At the very least, if a character/class is going to have to spend their time casting a spell, better that it's a sustained barrier that PREVENTS incoming damage to the party than a damage-undoing middle-man.

 

Methods of preventing/avoiding damage would never have made their way into games in the first place if healing was so much more interesting. There'd be no evasion, or barriers, or armor, or resistances, or stuns, etc. Combat would just be a math battle.

 

"This enemy deals 57 damage every 2.1 seconds, and I have a maximum health pool of 412HP. If my healer can heal for 100HP every 12 seconds... *whips out calculator*... yep, the overall ratio of my damage output to his, factoring in the healing, is good. I can win this."

 

That's pretty much what it got down to in MMOs, even though single-player games are typically a bit more interesting than that. But, it isn't at all necessary to have an entire class role that is healing. The same exact effect can be achieved through more interesting means. I think that's a valid basis for the proposed system.

 

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).

[Somna]

 

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.

[...]

 

Yeah...instead it was "Do you have a healer in the party?"

 

Planescape:Torment really illustrated this by not giving you Fall-From-Grace till waaaaaaay further in the game. Difference with and without her was night and day.

[Lephys]

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.

 

So wait... what you're suggesting that having to remove yourself from the direct line of incoming damage -- under whatever conditions, by whatever means necessary -- in order to heal (as in a shooter) is not inherently more tactical than simply standing in the plain line of fire all day long because you can use health packs or some healing-class character to reverse the damage faster than your opponent can dish it out?

 

I'm not seeing it. If you can point out how, I'd be happy to know. Seriously.

 

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).

 

To say a class fills the role of "healer" does not mean they do nothing else. but, if other classes cannot do what they do (heal on a constant basis in the midst of combat) -- no matter what else all the classes can do -- then you've got a role restriction. Which is exactly what you have with healers.

 

The fact remains that healing someone until you kill the thing that's harming them is mathematically the EXACT same thing as helping kill that thing more quickly. Pretend you have a character with 10HP who deals 1 damage every second, and he's engaging a goblin with 13HP who also deals 1 damage every second. If you were going to have 1 extra character to help that first guy out, then why should he stand around healing the main character for 1HP every 3 seconds when he could've just run in and helped kill the goblin? How is letting the damage occur (in a system that is man-made, entirely out of mathematical code, mind you) and action-reversing it, mid-combat, in any way better than actually combatting the foe in a way such that you slay it before it slays you?

 

What if competitive sports had a player on each team whose job it was to UN-score points for the opposing team? Are competitive sports less tactical without that?

 

Combat-healing is something almost entirely (if not entirely) imagined up for early RPGs with hit-point systems. When's the last time you read an awesome fantasy novel in which a healer sustained someone in combat whilst they fought? Sure, sometimes someone gets hurled across the room, into a column, and the "healer" might make sure their bleeding stops or something so that they don't die before they can be gotten out of harms way (after the fight's done and the danger's passed) and to a place to be fully healed. I don't think it would be a very exciting tale if someone kept healing every single cut that another character took.

 

"He fought valiantly against the evil lord Melavath, who kept wounding him and wounding him. But, lo, the healer Azreiar did keep undoing that which the evil lord had done, immediately after each blow had been dealt. But would her mana pool last longer than the dark lord's health pool? The tension was menacingly thick!"

 

The only tactical consideration that provides is "Take out the healer first!" for the attackers, and "protect the healer or we're all dead!" for the defenders. That's really about as silly as "Keep the Warrior healed, or we'll lose our damage dealer!"

 

So, "Have our knight run over there to shield block that axe blow" or "Have our healer undo the hit point loss from that axe blow regardless of how we worry about dealing with it!"... which is a more tactical decision, I ask.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lephys

[Dream]

So wait... what you're suggesting that having to remove yourself from the direct line of incoming damage -- under whatever conditions, by whatever means necessary -- in order to heal (as in a shooter) is not inherently more tactical than simply standing in the plain line of fire all day long because you can use health packs or some healing-class character to reverse the damage faster than your opponent can dish it out?

 

I'm not seeing it. If you can point out how, I'd be happy to know. Seriously.

 

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.

 

To say a class fills the role of "healer" does not mean they do nothing else. but, if other classes cannot do what they do (heal on a constant basis in the midst of combat) -- no matter what else all the classes can do -- then you've got a role restriction. Which is exactly what you have with healers.

 

The fact remains that healing someone until you kill the thing that's harming them is mathematically the EXACT same thing as helping kill that thing more quickly. Pretend you have a character with 10HP who deals 1 damage every second, and he's engaging a goblin with 13HP who also deals 1 damage every second. If you were going to have 1 extra character to help that first guy out, then why should he stand around healing the main character for 1HP every 3 seconds when he could've just run in and helped kill the goblin? How is letting the damage occur (in a system that is man-made, entirely out of mathematical code, mind you) and action-reversing it, mid-combat, in any way better than actually combatting the foe in a way such that you slay it before it slays you?

 

What if competitive sports had a player on each team whose job it was to UN-score points for the opposing team? Are competitive sports less tactical without that?

 

Combat-healing is something almost entirely (if not entirely) imagined up for early RPGs with hit-point systems. When's the last time you read an awesome fantasy novel in which a healer sustained someone in combat whilst they fought? Sure, sometimes someone gets hurled across the room, into a column, and the "healer" might make sure their bleeding stops or something so that they don't die before they can be gotten out of harms way (after the fight's done and the danger's passed) and to a place to be fully healed. I don't think it would be a very exciting tale if someone kept healing every single cut that another character took.

 

"He fought valiantly against the evil lord Melavath, who kept wounding him and wounding him. But, lo, the healer Azreiar did keep undoing that which the evil lord had done, immediately after each blow had been dealt. But would her mana pool last longer than the dark lord's health pool? The tension was menacingly thick!"

 

The only tactical consideration that provides is "Take out the healer first!" for the attackers, and "protect the healer or we're all dead!" for the defenders. That's really about as silly as "Keep the Warrior healed, or we'll lose our damage dealer!"

 

So, "Have our knight run over there to shield block that axe blow" or "Have our healer undo the hit point loss from that axe blow regardless of how we worry about dealing with it!"... which is a more tactical decision, I ask.

 

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.

[Lephys]

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.

 

I love that. Managing your health somehow gets the adverb "actively," as opposed to the complete passiveness of combat positioning and strategic efforts to avoid damage. But, that's okay, 'cause you've got an infinite supply of healing! That is, until you fail avoid taking more than 3 consecutive bullets in the span of about 15 seconds. In which case you die. But, it's not like that fact encourages you to use good tactics or anything. Being able to take 2 bullets, then have your friend (who could've simply shot your opponent before you took the third bullet) restore 2 bullets worth of health to you before that third bullet hits, allowing YOU to successfully kill your opponent without a care in the world about trying to get NOT-shot... that's definitely mandating the crap out of some tactics.

 

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.

 

Splendid! Yes! Since two systems mathematically achieve the same end, it logically follows that all aspects of variance are pointless. That's what one system being compared to one other system proves. I'm really glad you caught that. I was worried for a minute, to be honest.

 

Let's add in some more tactical depth, shall we? Let's have a THIRD type of person (other than healer and non-healer) called the Manacaller, who gets a bunch of abilities that actively restore mana. That way, we have so much more tactical depth, because limiting just ONE pool of points that is expected to be "actively" restored constantly throughout a conflict scenario isn't redundant enough. Or, better yet, we could implement a system of UN-healing for yet another layer of depth. Characters could cast spells that caused damage equal to the amount of healing enemies received, thereby allowing for the tactical management of damage-undoing-undoing versus damage output. Combine that with the mana healing (which would, I suppose, cost health), and you've got a veritable smorgasbord of tactics!

 

Or, I guess we could just add in a tug-of-war minigame.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Lephys

[Dream]

I love that. Managing your health somehow gets the adverb "actively," as opposed to the complete passiveness of combat positioning and strategic efforts to avoid damage. But, that's okay, 'cause you've got an infinite supply of healing! That is, until you fail avoid taking more than 3 consecutive bullets in the span of about 15 seconds. In which case you die. But, it's not like that fact encourages you to use good tactics or anything. Being able to take 2 bullets, then have your friend (who could've simply shot your opponent before you took the third bullet) restore 2 bullets worth of health to you before that third bullet hits, allowing YOU to successfully kill your opponent without a care in the world about trying to get NOT-shot... that's definitely mandating the crap out of some tactics.

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?

 

Splendid! Yes! Since two systems mathematically achieve the same end, it logically follows that all aspects of variance are pointless. That's what one system being compared to one other system proves. I'm really glad you caught that. I was worried for a minute, to be honest.

 

Let's add in some more tactical depth, shall we? Let's have a THIRD type of person (other than healer and non-healer) called the Manacaller, who gets a bunch of abilities that actively restore mana. That way, we have so much more tactical depth, because limiting just ONE pool of points that is expected to be "actively" restored constantly throughout a conflict scenario isn't redundant enough. Or, better yet, we could implement a system of UN-healing for yet another layer of depth. Characters could cast spells that caused damage equal to the amount of healing enemies received, thereby allowing for the tactical management of damage-undoing-undoing versus damage output. Combine that with the mana healing (which would, I suppose, cost health), and you've got a veritable smorgasbord of tactics!

 

Or, I guess we could just add in a tug-of-war minigame.

 

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.

[JFSOCC]

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?

but you can play without the medic, in any IE game running around without someone to heal you is highly unpractical

[Karkarov]

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?

but you can play without the medic, in any IE game running around without someone to heal you is highly unpractical

 

I can't think of any sillier line of argument that what seems to be going on lately in this thread. We are talking about Project: Eternity, not CoD, not BF, not TF2. None of those games will handle regenerating health the same way this game does. In fact, P:E doesn't even have regenerating health.

 

Wut you SAY?!?!?!?!

 

That's right. Stamina is NOT health. It is simply how much you can take before you fall unconscious. Even The Elder Scrolls games have ways you can play this way, taking a guy out through Stamina, not HP, damage. Your health slowly goes down as you fight in different encounters and does not regenerate until you rest. Think of it as Mass Effect (specifically Mass Effect 1). Stamina is your shield, it regenerates and grows back quickly on it's own but can also go down quickly if you take a few clean hits, or even just one big hit. Health in that game did not regenerate, you had to use a medpack to heal it. So P:E is basically ME1 with more robust shields and no medpack.

 

Trust me, or better yet trust Sawyer, it will work.

 

The "trinity" (tank, healer, dps) is only one way of making a game work and moving away from it is not a bad thing. I honestly think it is one of the simplest and least tactical ways of designing combat in fact. It is so common simply because it is so easy to design and everyone knows how it works almost instinctively. Don't mistake a large number of archtypes which all boil down to 1 of 3 things for depth.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Karkarov

[JFSOCC]

 

The "trinity" (tank, healer, dps) is only one way of making a game work and moving away from it is not a bad thing. I honestly think it is one of the simplest and least tactical ways of designing combat in fact.

that's what I'm saying

[Malekith]

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?

but you can play without the medic, in any IE game running around without someone to heal you is highly unpractical

 

I can't think of any sillier line of argument that what seems to be going on lately in this thread. We are talking about Project: Eternity, not CoD, not BF, not TF2. None of those games will handle regenerating health the same way this game does. In fact, P:E doesn't even have regenerating health.

 

Wut you SAY?!?!?!?!

 

That's right. Stamina is NOT health. It is simply how much you can take before you fall unconscious. Even The Elder Scrolls games have ways you can play this way, taking a guy out through Stamina, not HP, damage. Your health slowly goes down as you fight in different encounters and does not regenerate until you rest. Think of it as Mass Effect (specifically Mass Effect 1). Stamina is your shield, it regenerates and grows back quickly on it's own but can also go down quickly if you take a few clean hits, or even just one big hit. Health in that game did not regenerate, you had to use a medpack to heal it. So P:E is basically ME1 with more robust shields and no medpack.

 

Trust me, or better yet trust Sawyer, it will work.

 

The "trinity" (tank, healer, dps) is only one way of making a game work and moving away from it is not a bad thing. I honestly think it is one of the simplest and least tactical ways of designing combat in fact. It is so common simply because it is so easy to design and everyone knows how it works almost instinctively. Don't mistake a large number of archtypes which all boil down to 1 of 3 things for depth.

 

^ This. with one correction.Stamina is not shield. You take damage in both stamina and health simultaneously

[PrimeJunta]

It's funny, but I still think the game with the best squad-based tactical combat I've played was Microsoft Close Combat from the mid-1990's. It was simple enough to be manageable, the command UI was perfect, there were enough unit and terrain types to provide genuine variety, and it had a hell of a good campaign. The AI was really well done, especially in the way it modeled behavior of individual soldiers under fire. It made concepts like suppressive fire actually matter -- you could pin down an enemy squad with one well-placed machine gunner and then have the rest of your squad outflank them. The enemy AI was smart enough to try that on you as well.

 

It managed it with a handful of basic unit types -- the rifleman, the machine-gunner, the sniper, the tank, and the fixed gun emplacement. No tank-healer-dps archetypes there. (Well, other than the actual tank, which is not at all like the cRPG tank. Very satisfying to bust when getting close up. Very annoying to lose through careless use.)

 

I played some of the later ones in that series as well, but didn't like them as much. They started trying too hard, piling on more and more mechanics that just added complexity (and realism, of course) but none of them were just as much sheer sweaty-palmed fun. (Hm. That sounds naughty, but you know what I mean.)

 

I remember thinking "Goddamn, somebody needs to put this into a cRPG" back then. I'm still waiting.

 

Apologies to those who disapprove of tangents. Thought it might be interesting anyway.

[Dream]

I can't think of any sillier line of argument that what seems to be going on lately in this thread. We are talking about Project: Eternity, not CoD, not BF, not TF2. None of those games will handle regenerating health the same way this game does. In fact, P:E doesn't even have regenerating health.

 

Wut you SAY?!?!?!?!

 

That's right. Stamina is NOT health. It is simply how much you can take before you fall unconscious. Even The Elder Scrolls games have ways you can play this way, taking a guy out through Stamina, not HP, damage. Your health slowly goes down as you fight in different encounters and does not regenerate until you rest. Think of it as Mass Effect (specifically Mass Effect 1). Stamina is your shield, it regenerates and grows back quickly on it's own but can also go down quickly if you take a few clean hits, or even just one big hit. Health in that game did not regenerate, you had to use a medpack to heal it. So P:E is basically ME1 with more robust shields and no medpack.

 

Trust me, or better yet trust Sawyer, it will work.

 

The "trinity" (tank, healer, dps) is only one way of making a game work and moving away from it is not a bad thing. I honestly think it is one of the simplest and least tactical ways of designing combat in fact. It is so common simply because it is so easy to design and everyone knows how it works almost instinctively. Don't mistake a large number of archtypes which all boil down to 1 of 3 things for depth.

 

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

Edited December 11, 2012 by Dream

[Lephys]

So, conclusion:

 

Regenerating mathematical representation of mortality: inherently bad and provides nothing but tactical black hole.

 

The ability to reverse damage: Literally the thriving home planet to the people known as Tactics.

 

Obviously breaking down the effects of both the traditional, healing-dependent system and Sawyer's proposed system was completely unreasonable and provided absolutely no valid points.