Why so set against giving us any (non-combat) health healing?

[limaxophobiacq]

To answer the OP's question, I believe it's because the designers think it's not desirable to have classes, characters, or abilities that you NEED to have to lengthen your "adventuring day". The length of the adventuring day is something that's important to the game's overall pacing - so important that they'd prefer to maintain more control over it.

 

Or in other words, they don't think "you can clear out two dungeons before having to rest if you have a priest, but only one dungeon if you don't" is a particularly interesting choice to make.

 

Of course, the entire system requires balancing now, including better enemy AI to make damage spread more equally across the party. On the other hand, if you're letting your one tank get f*cked up constantly, that's kind of your fault.

 

Make it another skill then, so it's not class restricted.

[Shevek]

I do think they need to tweak the health:stamina ratios (make the barb 1:16 instead of 1:8, everyone else 1:8 - so double). If they do that plus get the enemies not just to focus on the tank or their first target, then that should increase the amount of time between rests enough.

 

I wonder if theres a text file (like the 2das of the ie games) to do the ratios ourselves.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Shevek

[aeonsim]

 

[..]On the other hand, if you're letting your one tank get f*cked up constantly, that's kind of your fault.

Hmm, what's the role of a tank is not to be the one to get ****ed up instead of others?

I mean you might not agree with the need for a tank (which I have no problem with), but once you allow that path to be taken, then that's pretty much their role? I mean, fighters have nothing but talents dedicated to do just that, soaking up damage and get ****ed up constantly. The more you use resources to "CC" and "prevent damage", the more useless they become at their one and only role in the game...

...so it's not a failure or a fault if your tank gets ****ed up really, according to the game design, at least some of it, it's actually a success if the tank is getting hit constantly, because that's what everything in the class is designed for...except the Health system...

 

 

So I see no reason to think the only way to build a fighter is a build that forces it to take all the parties damage, honestly it sounds like a lack of imagination and that you've spent to much time around MOMOs and other games where that is a fighters only role.

 

I suspect the evidence of a good player will be one who can spread the damage around the entire party rather than just relying on one or two classes to take it all. There is a reason I suspect why the wizards have a number of abilities/spells that will allow them to survive in the front line, not to mention once they're out of spells switch them to heavy armour and light weapons and stick them in the front line and this is possible for all classes.

 

Secondly with the interrupt system is should be quite possible to build a fighter who locks down enemies and doesn't take much damage. That combined with melee weapons that allow a stand off distance and ranged weapons means you should be able to cycle your entire party down to 20% health before you need to rest not just the fighters, while still allowing them to contribute damage.

 

Finally tactical play should allow you to minimise damage to the fighter, play it smart rather than just run the fighter into a bunch of enemies and let them pound away him, chanters summons, ciphers controls, buffs and CC all these give you opportunities to control and destroy enemies in smarter ways. Use the fighter to attract attention but don't let them take any damage.

 

[Mayama]

 

 

So I see no reason to think the only way to build a fighter is a build that forces it to take all the parties damage, honestly it sounds like a lack of imagination and that you've spent to much time around MOMOs and other games where that is a fighters only role.

 

Maybee you spend not enough time around mmorpg's because I cant name a single one which doesnt have a dps fighter.

[mutonizer]

So I see no reason to think the only way to build a fighter is a build that forces it to take all the parties damage, honestly it sounds like a lack of imagination and that you've spent to much time around MOMOs and other games where that is a fighters only role.

 

Since you're KS backer, you actually played the beta right? I mean, not to be rude but you do realize that every single ability the fighters get are focused on one thing, and one thing alone: being a tank that soaks up as much of the enemies attacks and damage as possible.

 

[..]There is a reason I suspect why the wizards have a number of abilities/spells that will allow them to survive in the front line, not to mention once they're out of spells switch them to heavy armour and light weapons and stick them in the front line and this is possible for all classes.

Actually I suspect that it's because combat might very easily end up being a complete cluster-fest, and they realized that without some defensive spells or something, wizards would get annihilated. The massive focus on big AE effects for almost everything and the lack of care to make precision fighting a thing tends to go in favor of that reason as well: "can't understand wtf is going on? Don't worry, just keep pushing buttons, it'll do something!"

 

 

Finally tactical play should allow you to minimize damage to the fighter, play it smart rather than just run the fighter into a bunch of enemies and let them pound away him, chanters summons, ciphers controls, buffs and CC all these give you opportunities to control and destroy enemies in smarter ways. Use the fighter to attract attention but don't let them take any damage.

Hmm, why use a fighter for that exactly? I'm sure you'll get a headless chicken party member just for that

 

Maybe you spend not enough time around mmorpg's because I cant name a single one which doesnt have a dps fighter.

True, though there's at least one up and coming cRPG: Pillars of Eternity.

 

 

 

But this is not the point really, nor is it a thread about fighters.

The post is about Health being removed from the resource system and the effects and consequences of that fact on game-play. I personally used fighter as an example since was the most obvious and common problem I saw in videos and streams, but the issue is true for any given situation where you end up, somehow, with your entire party at 100% resource, while someone is at low Health (for any reason really), and therefore you are somewhat forced to rest, or risk losing that character forever.

Edited August 30, 2014 by mutonizer

[Zansatsu]

I have no comment on the health to stamina ratio because I feel it will take some time before I can accurately gauge if it's flawed. Fighters from what little I've seen seem very one dimensional and boring which is a shame because they are normally my favorite class type.

[Volourn]

"True, though there's at least one up and coming cRPG: Pillars of Eternity."

 

Actually, it does. They're called barbarian, and rogue/thief.

[khermann]

@mutonizer,

I just wanted to thank you for your first post in this thread on the first page.

 

I found it to be a very cogent and well defined analysis of mechanics impacting gameplay and "fun"

Edited August 31, 2014 by khermann

[prodigydancer]

Fighters from what little I've seen seem very one dimensional and boring

Isn't that exactly how we remember them from IE games? At least back then you could heal the poor sods.

Edited August 31, 2014 by prodigydancer

[Mayama]

@mutonizer,

I just wanted to thank you for your first post in this thread on the first page.

 

I found it to be a very cogent and well defined analysis of mechanics impacting gameplay and "fun"

You are aware that he doesnt play the beta and a lot of the stuff he said does not work that way ingame from a mechanical point of view?

[mutonizer]

You are aware that he doesnt play the beta and a lot of the stuff he said does not work that way ingame from a mechanical point of view?

Hmm, such as?

[Matt516]

Mutonizer, while I appreciate your reference to my post, I have to completely disagree with your conclusion re: the percentage based bonuses making two handed weapons more powerful. That is simply not true. Given 2 weapons with equal dps - say a sword that hits 2 times per second for 40 and a greatsword that hits 1 time per second for 80, any percentage based damage bonus will increase dps equally. Say 10% - now the sword hits 2 times per second for 44 and the greatsword hits 1 time per second for 88. Same dps. This is in stark contrast to a flat damage bonus system which overwhelmingly favors faster hitting weapons because they get the damage bonus on every hit. The percentage system is there so that neither weapon style benefits more from extra damage - your assertion that the percentage based damage boni favor big heavy weapons is simply incorrect.

 

That said, big heavy weapons do have an advantage in raw dps since they do more damage per hit and therefore have less absorbed from DT. But (as you said) when damage numbers are very large, this may not have a noticeable effect. We don't really know the numbers yet so we can't speak intelligently about if that is balanced or not. But yeah - large weapons do have that on small weapons.

 

Even so, small weapons have an advantage over large weapons - they hit faster, and are thus less likely to be interrupted and more likely to cause interrupts. Since we don't know the specifics of the math on interrupts, it's hard to tell if that will balance out the slightly higher damage of large weapons.

 

In any case, just wanted to point that out. Large weapons do NOT benefit more from % based damage boni. If you don't believe me, download my spreadsheet and run some numbers for yourself. A large weapon and a small weapon with the same dps before boni will have the same dps after boni as well. They only differ in the dps reduction from armor, which may or may not be offset by the increased interrupt resistance and causation of small weapons.

[khermann]

I thought he was talking about an earlier build.. I need to look at post dates better

 

His presentation was convincing, so, well played, troll. Well played.

 

Thanks

Edited August 31, 2014 by khermann

[mutonizer]

[..]His presentation was convincing, so, well played, troll. Well played.

Sorry what?

 

Mutonizer, while I appreciate your reference to my post, I have to completely disagree with your conclusion [..]

100% correct and I did mention that not only I had no clue if this would ever be doable, I mentioned this was extreme, just to make a point.

 

However removing DT from the equation of DPS when DT is a core part of it, doesn't do the system justice I think and if you include it, then, % based damage bonus will favor heavy hitter simply because they have a much easier time breaking DT overall. Could be wrong but this logic seems..logical to me (go figure!)

Also, when talking DPS, utility and CC factors can't really be included in the equation. From your spreadsheet, it's clear that fast weapons cannot compete in DPS against heavy weapons under any condition whatsoever, at best equaling DPS, at worst as DT rises, falling behind tremendously.

 

edit:

Corrected to prevent useless wall of text because: reasons

Edited August 31, 2014 by mutonizer

[Zansatsu]

 

Fighters from what little I've seen seem very one dimensional and boring

Isn't that exactly how we remember them from IE games? At least back then you could heal the poor sods.

 

Ya but it's disappointing 15 years or so later nobody thought maybe they could be spiced up some. This is purely hypothetical and I'm not saying OE needs to even consider this but suppose there was no barbarian class at all. Instead it's abilities were mixed in and made to fit with the fighter and instead of a "fighter" we had a warrior. Now you could choose to upgrade him into an incredible tank or a melee power house.  Much more interesting imo.

[Matt516]

 

[..]His presentation was convincing, so, well played, troll. Well played.

Sorry what?

 

Mutonizer, while I appreciate your reference to my post, I have to completely disagree with your conclusion [..]

100% correct and I did mention that not only I had no clue if this would ever be doable, I mentioned this was extreme, just to make a point.

 

However removing DT from the equation of DPS when DT is a core part of it, doesn't do the system justice I think and if you include it, then, % based damage bonus will favor heavy hitter simply because they have a much easier time breaking DT overall. Could be wrong but this logic seems..logical to me (go figure!)

Also, when talking DPS, utility and CC factors can't really be included in the equation. From your spreadsheet, it's clear that fast weapons cannot compete in DPS against heavy weapons under any condition whatsoever, at best equaling DPS, at worst as DT rises, falling behind tremendously.

 

edit:

Corrected to prevent useless wall of text because: reasons

 

 

Well it entirely depends on the values. If fast weapons also had three times the base damage of slow weapons, they'd blow them out of the water. Obviously that's not true - but just pointing out that balance, ultimately, is all about tuning the numbers.

 

Now, say we do assume a fast weapon and a slow weapon with the same base dps. Yeah, the fast weapon will fall behind in damage because of DT - but remember that this is without taking into account DT piercing (on some fast weapons). Also remember, again, the interrupts. While you're right that your own interrupts don't contribute to dps (but are still tactically useful), your ability to avoid being interrupted does contribute to dps. I haven't included interrupts in the spreadsheet yet because I'm not sure exactly how they're calculated, but the beneficial effect on dps from having a fast weapon is real.

 

In any case - all I'm saying is that the system (especially the boni) isn't set up in such a way to overwhelmingly favor slow, strong weapons like you made it out to be. And even if slow, strong weapons have a bit more dps than their faster counterparts - I'm actually ok with that. It makes sense to me that if a warrior wants to inflict the most punishment possible, they'd use a giant-ass sword or axe. The reason smaller weapons could still be balanced (in spite of maybe doing a bit less damage) is they let you use a shield, they let you interrupt more, etc. That's an interesting tactical choice. If all weapons of similar quality did the same dps, regardless of type, weapon choice would be largely cosmetic. So while I still disagree with you about the magnitude of the dps advantage large weapons have, I don't actually have any problem at all with large weapons having a dps advantage of some kind. As long as there are interesting reasons to use other styles (more defensive, more interrupts, etc), I'm totally ok with that.

[mutonizer]

Well it entirely depends on the values. If fast weapons also had three times the base damage of slow weapons, they'd blow them out of the water. Obviously that's not true - but just pointing out that balance, ultimately, is all about tuning the numbers.

 

Now, say we do assume a fast weapon and a slow weapon with the same base dps. Yeah, the fast weapon will fall behind in damage because of DT - but remember that this is without taking into account DT piercing (on some fast weapons). Also remember, again, the interrupts. While you're right that your own interrupts don't contribute to dps (but are still tactically useful), your ability to avoid being interrupted does contribute to dps. I haven't included interrupts in the spreadsheet yet because I'm not sure exactly how they're calculated, but the beneficial effect on dps from having a fast weapon is real.

 

In any case - all I'm saying is that the system (especially the boni) isn't set up in such a way to overwhelmingly favor slow, strong weapons like you made it out to be. And even if slow, strong weapons have a bit more dps than their faster counterparts - I'm actually ok with that. It makes sense to me that if a warrior wants to inflict the most punishment possible, they'd use a giant-ass sword or axe. The reason smaller weapons could still be balanced (in spite of maybe doing a bit less damage) is they let you use a shield, they let you interrupt more, etc. That's an interesting tactical choice. If all weapons of similar quality did the same dps, regardless of type, weapon choice would be largely cosmetic. So while I still disagree with you about the magnitude of the dps advantage large weapons have, I don't actually have any problem at all with large weapons having a dps advantage of some kind. As long as there are interesting reasons to use other styles (more defensive, more interrupts, etc), I'm totally ok with that.

Well, I'm ok with that too personally but remember that at it's core, the whole thing was about the Health system.

 

While it got derailed by a jab at me by referring to "try using clever tactics" after I tried to explain some of the flaws I perceived about the Health system, it derailed in that "clever" meant, to me, with this system, "ultra specialized" and not "balanced", and therefore the extreme example I gave, which is a specialized DPSer (and from what I've seen so far, that is actually the biggest pure damage sustainable dealing potential).

 

Maybe I should have added more smileys or put disclaimers before and not after and yes, I was wrong about the % based modifier if you remove DT from the equation but once you actually factor it in, the variation is there, and the more there, the more there is, which is what such % based system lead to: it tends to exacerbates everything.

Not saying flat modifiers system are perfect or anything, but you gotta admit that they are far easier to control and mitigate overall, especially when designing an entire game system from the ground up. It's very hard to predict the ramifications of multiple (additive and/or multiplicative) % factors on various aspect of very diverse items (and from looking at item description and enchants, there's a lot of that) compared to a +1/-1 system you got in RPGs like D&D and that even when a +1/-1 system is a bit ****ed up, it's usually mild compared to when a % based system is ****ed up.

 

 

And this all links back to Health and my worry because of it since, as I mentioned, it controls your entire experience of play, is completely disconnected from the resource system used across the entire game and yet is your only game over. A complicated, somewhat unpredictable (let's not kid ourselves, nothing is ever perfectly balanced) and overall obscure system (not gonna play with your spreadsheet open, as good as it looks!) doesn't fit right with that, at least for me.