Jump to content
Matt516

On "Degenerative Gameplay" - Fixing the Incentives for Healing and Scouting

Recommended Posts

I've noticed a lot of people really don't like the term "Degenerative Gameplay". I'm really not sure why. You may disagree with how Josh Sawyer uses the term "Degenerative Gameplay" (now DG) sometimes, especially when he's referring to a mechanic or system you don't like... but that doesn't mean the term is flawed.

 

Far from it. DG is an incredibly useful term, because it describes (as I understand it) a situation in which the incentive structure of a game mechanic is flawed. DG, as I've seen it used, describes game mechanics that lead players to take actions that would be absurd or ridiculous within the context of the game world because of metagaming concerns. Rest-spamming is a classic example. A properly designed game reflects the in-universe incentives to the player as game incentives, leading them to act in such a way that the optimal course for the player is similar to or identical to the optimal course for the characters in the game world (if you were reading a story or something). DG occurs when a game mechanic is poorly designed, incentivizing the player to do something that would be absurd within the context of the game world or story. Such as stopping for an 8-hour nap every 5 minutes.

 

Now, obviously you'll never be able to remove all sources of DG from a game as complex as this - but that should be the goal. And I think Josh Sawyer's goal of doing so is admirable. I think he's made some good steps. I also think he's made some missteps. And I think when talking about mechanics that aren't working, we should be careful to distinguish between DG and just mechanics we don't prefer.

 

I'll give a few examples here of some disputed mechanics that are DG, and some that aren't:

 

Disputed mechanics that are not a significant source of Degenerative Gameplay:

If the fighter tanks all the hits, I have to rest with him before all the other characters.

 

This, while maybe not a mechanic everyone is fond of, isn't DG in and of itself. "But Matt," you may say... "when my fighter runs out of health and the rest of the party doesn't, I have to rest every 5 seconds. And that's DG!" Well... sort of. The fact that the current game mechanics encourage rest-spamming is DG - but the fact that this occurs because the fighter taking all the hits loses all his health before the characters who aren't taking hits is not DG - because that makes sense. If a party of adventurers wanders around, and has one guy doing all the close-range fighting and getting hit all the time, of course he will be more wounded than everyone else. So the fact of a tank taking all the hits and causing resting isn't in and of itself DG. The DG in that case (rest-spamming) results from a problem with the Health/Stamina system, which I'll (kind of) go into a little bit later.

 

Since armor slows you down, there's no point in putting armor on my ranged characters!

 

This is another example of a mechanic that, while maybe poorly balanced atm, isn't actually DG. It makes sense that someone who wants to (for example) fire arrows as fast as possible wouldn't wear armor. Now, maybe there need to be more no-slowdown plain clothes in the game. Maybe the slowdown from armor that exists needs to be reduced. Maybe enemies need to be smarter and attack your ranged characters more often, causing you to have to make a tradeoff. Maybe all of these are true! But the simple fact that characters who want to attack as fast as possible shouldn't wear armor isn't in and of itself a source of DG. That actually makes sense within the game world. The AI issues that don't punish you for that may be though. Fortunately, we've already heard those will be improved.

 

Disputed mechanics that are a significant source of Degenerative Gameplay i.e. bad design i.e. these need to be fixed:
- When my fighter is taking a lot of hits, it makes more sense to let him fall than to heal him because of the Health/Stamina system.

 

Oy... This is the biggest one IMO. It makes zero sense that it is a better tactical decision to let someone fall than to heal them. It just doesn't. Right now, the optimal decision for the player when a party member is taking lots of hits is to just let them fall unconscious, because healing them will only result in the loss of more health. The current mechanics incentivize just letting your characters fall unconscious because there is not any penalty for letting them fall. I.. just.... nope. Bad design. Fix it.

 

Now, the fix doesn't need to come in the form of removing the Health/Stamina system. Remember that sources of DG are, at their core, from bad incentive structure. There needs to be an incentive to heal your party members instead of letting them fall. I have a few suggestions for possible solutions. I'll start with the ones that don't involve removing Health/Stamina (which I understand Josh is quite fond of), then move on to a few more radical suggestions:

 

1) Cause healing spells to heal a small amount of health as well - perhaps 1/6 or 1/8 as much as stamina. And only allow them to be used in combat (i.e. on "recent" wounds). This could make sense lore-wise (combat-only restriction means that only very recent wounds can be healed, which would fit with their lore reasons for no strategic healing) while allowing the player to use healing to somewhat alleviate the issue with frontliners losing all their health. Would also mean that healing is always a good thing - as it should be. :p

2) Have enemies attack downed characters, doing health damage vs reduced defenses. This would absolutely solve the problem, absolutely make sense (why does a wolf or beetle stop savaging you when you fall, exactly?), and absolutely be very punishing. This could be somewhat alleviated by making it a reduced ratio of health damage (definitely 1/4, maybe even 1/8), and would probably also be smart to only have non-intelligent enemies do this (as wild animals should keep attacking/eating, whereas smart enemies would realize they should move onto another threat). Even if only non-intelligent enemies did this, the DG problem would be fixed - after all, playing dead against a humanoid enemy would be a viable tactic in real life. Just not against everything.

3) Take a wound every time a character falls. minus-whatever to attributes until rest. Not a perfect solution, but it would resolve the incentive issues.

4) And finally (not gonna happen), remove health altogether and allow a certain number of falls before being maimed (dependent on class and talents). This would completely solve the incentive issues, making healing an altogether good thing (as it should be). 

 

That's all I've got on the healing DG problem. Josh, pls read. :3

 

- If I want to find hidden items, I have to walk around in scouting mode all the time.

 

This is just dumb. Walking around in constant scouting mode with the game in fast motion is the optimal way to play right now. And that's stupid. Scouting needs to be overhauled (i.e. with some passive component) or removed. Structuring a game mechanic such that the optimal strategy is to do something absurd is the absolute definition of degenerative gameplay.

 

 

That's all for now. Thanks for reading! :)

Edited by Matt516
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, the optimal decision for the player when a party member is taking lots of hits is to just let them fall unconscious, because healing them will only result in the loss of more health.

 

I agree that there's a bit of a strange/perverse incentive here, but it's not always the optimal decision if, you know, you still need that fighter to prevent your other characters from losing health. You're not operating in a vacuum.

Edited by Infinitron
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that there's a bit of a strange/perverse incentive here, but it's not always the optimal decision if, you know, you still need that fighter to prevent your other characters from losing health. You're not operating in a vacuum.

It should never be a better choice to on purpose let yourself go down. That is the most degenerate game play I have seen in any game ever.

Until that is somehow fixed I will not consider this game finished.

Edited by archangel979
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right now, the optimal decision for the player when a party member is taking lots of hits is to just let them fall unconscious, because healing them will only result in the loss of more health.

 

I agree that there's a bit of a strange/perverse incentive here, but it's not always the optimal decision if, you know, you still need that fighter to prevent your other characters from losing health. You're not operating in a vacuum.

 

 

Good point - there are definitely other factors at play that mitigate it a little bit. I still find the incentive structure flawed at the moment though.

 

Also (just a general thing) please everyone note that the 4 issues I mentioned here were my best attempt to categorize things into DG and non-DG problems - there are certainly some fuzzy areas in all of them. Please don't dogpile me because I missed one. O_o (not that Infinitron did anything of the kind).

 

My main purpose in posting this was to get people to stop using DG as a joke or sarcastic term and to realize that it is actually a very useful term if done right. Whenever I see "Degenerative Gameplay" I read it "Flawed Incentive Structure", because that's what it means. Some people will try to find exploits no matter what, and you can't do much about those - but I would tend to say that in general, if DG occurs, it is the fault of the designer and not the player. Players should be expected to try to perform optimally - thus if a system requires absurd behavior to perform optimally, it is producing DG.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post.

 

I've often wondered about the contingent of players who seem to want exploitable mechanics (=DG). That just... does not compute.

  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt516: I agree that the current system can lead to a concept of "kamikaze tanks", willing to abandon all self-preservation tactics and commit their entire stamina pool/25% of their health to finish off a tough encounter, if it's guaranteed that their sacrifice will allow the other party members to get out without a scratch.

 

But I'm unsure whether this should be considered a tactic that's "against the spirit of the game" and therefore degenerate. And it does have a cost, after all - you can only do it 4 times.

Edited by Infinitron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt516: I agree that the current system can lead to a concept of "kamikaze tanks", willing to abandon all self-preservation tactics and commit their entire stamina pool/25% of their health to finish off a tough encounter, if it's guaranteed that their sacrifice will allow the other party members to get out without a scratch.

 

But I'm unsure whether this should be considered a tactic that's "against the spirit of the game" and therefore degenerate. And it does have a cost, after all - you can only do it 4 times.

 

Well, and I actually classified that as non-DG in my OP. The concept of "tanking" I have no problem with (though people should stop complaining that their tank is then losing all of his health haha :p). The main DG-related problem with the Health/Stamina concept IMO is the disincentivization of healing.

Edited by Matt516

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a solution for #1 for our thread matt, I'll pm it to ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Matt516: I agree that the current system can lead to a concept of "kamikaze tanks", willing to abandon all self-preservation tactics and commit their entire stamina pool/25% of their health to finish off a tough encounter, if it's guaranteed that their sacrifice will allow the other party members to get out without a scratch.

 

But I'm unsure whether this should be considered a tactic that's "against the spirit of the game" and therefore degenerate. And it does have a cost, after all - you can only do it 4 times.

 

Well, and I actually classified that as non-DG in my OP. The concept of "tanking" I have no problem with (though people should stop complaining that their tank is then losing all of his health haha :p). The main DG-related problem with the Health/Stamina concept IMO is the disincentivization of healing.

 

 

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that it isn't so fundamentally different from say, a fighter in D&D who suicidally runs into a swarm of mobs so that they cluster around him, allowing the spellcasters of the party to blast them all with an area effect spell after he dies (instead of healing him).

 

It's a suicide tactic. Maybe it's too useful and overpowered a tactic now, especially if you're willing to run back to town to rest each time you use it. Maybe it isn't. I haven't played enough to be sure.

Edited by Infinitron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the game could do is provide you with some positive reinforcement for finishing a battle conscious. Something similar to the bonus you get at an inn (but with a shorter duration).

 

Or, maybe it could remove the bonus you got at the inn if you do fall unconscious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why letting your party members to fall can feel somewhat odd, but I am not sure if such tactic is actually against the design or what is designed to be meaningful tactic. As whole barbarian class for example seems to be designed around kamikaze fighter, like their wild run that allows them run through enemy lines, but don't reduce damage they take, frenzy which adds their attack speed but hides how much damage they have taken, and that they have abilities that make them hit better when they are wounded etc.. All these things seem to point that barbarians are designed to fall in fight. And this design decision has lead on fact that kamikaze/letting character fall down is also valid tactic for other classes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- When my fighter is taking a lot of hits, it makes more sense to let him fall than to heal him because of the Health/Stamina system.

 

Oy... This is the biggest one IMO. It makes zero sense that it is a better tactical decision to let someone fall than to heal them. It just doesn't. Right now, the optimal decision for the player when a party member is taking lots of hits is to just let them fall unconscious, because healing them will only result in the loss of more health. The current mechanics incentivize just letting your characters fall unconscious because there is not any penalty for letting them fall. I.. just.... nope. Bad design. Fix it.

 

Now, the fix doesn't need to come in the form of removing the Health/Stamina system. Remember that sources of DG are, at their core, from bad incentive structure. There needs to be an incentive to heal your party members instead of letting them fall. I have a few suggestions for possible solutions. I'll start with the ones that don't involve removing Health/Stamina (which I understand Josh is quite fond of), then move on to a few more radical suggestions:

 

1) Cause healing spells to heal a small amount of health as well - perhaps 1/6 or 1/8 as much as stamina. And only allow them to be used in combat (i.e. on "recent" wounds). This could make sense lore-wise (combat-only restriction means that only very recent wounds can be healed, which would fit with their lore reasons for no strategic healing) while allowing the player to use healing to somewhat alleviate the issue with frontliners losing all their health. Would also mean that healing is always a good thing - as it should be. :p

2) Have enemies attack downed characters, doing health damage vs reduced defenses. This would absolutely solve the problem, absolutely make sense (why does a wolf or beetle stop savaging you when you fall, exactly?), and absolutely be very punishing. This could be somewhat alleviated by making it a reduced ratio of health damage (definitely 1/4, maybe even 1/8), and would probably also be smart to only have non-intelligent enemies do this (as wild animals should keep attacking/eating, whereas smart enemies would realize they should move onto another threat). Even if only non-intelligent enemies did this, the DG problem would be fixed - after all, playing dead against a humanoid enemy would be a viable tactic in real life. Just not against everything.

 

Great write-up, Matt!! :)

The part that I quote above are very important stuff that you have quite fine solutions for. I really like the 1) and 2).

 

As for degenerative gameplay or flawed incentive structure, like with any old academic term, it's will get used and abused differently depending on who's regurgitating it. Like you say, the important thing is to enhance gameplay.

 

As a game dev, you really should cut out stuff that aren't making any sense at all at a "fun gameplay"-level. However, whether something makes sense, can be exploited, etc, those things shouldn't matter much at all. "Fun, rewarding and varied gameplay" trumps everything.


*** "The words of someone who feels ever more the ent among saplings when playing CRPGs" ***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand why letting your party members to fall can feel somewhat odd, but I am not sure if such tactic is actually against the design or what is designed to be meaningful tactic. As whole barbarian class for example seems to be designed around kamikaze fighter, like their wild run that allows them run through enemy lines, but don't reduce damage they take, frenzy which adds their attack speed but hides how much damage they have taken, and that they have abilities that make them hit better when they are wounded etc.. All these things seem to point that barbarians are designed to fall in fight. And this design decision has lead on fact that kamikaze/letting character fall down is also valid tactic for other classes.

 

Yeah, like I said, it's really the same thing as deciding to "write off" a fighter in D&D so that your clerics can focus on blasting the enemies with Flamestrikes instead. In both cases you decide that spending more healing resources on the character isn't worthwhile. "If I cast a healing spell on you now you'll just lose that health again, and then I'll have to heal you again afterwards!"

Edited by Infinitron
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the game could do is provide you with some positive reinforcement for finishing a battle conscious. Something similar to the bonus you get at an inn (but with a shorter duration).

 

Or, maybe it could remove the bonus you got at the inn if you do fall unconscious.

 

They could make downed character's fatigue level rise, which would make their efficiency drop after each downing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt I really think you're great man but you've incorrectly identified the problem.  The problem is not that it is directly better to let someone faint instead of healing him but that healing itself is essentially "degenerative" in the current health/stamina system.  The reason why allowing a member to faint *might* be a better tactic is that it stops the incoming damage to the health pool you are unable to heal.  The *real* problem is that it is essentially 100% of the time better to prevent damage rather than heal it.  Healing currently acts like a very slow acting poison in a sense that you treat an immediate problem at the expense of your long term "health".  Currently in the beta the Belt of Trollhide is the single least useful item because it is a trap.  That 6 stamina a second regen sounds amazing until you actually equip it and realize what it does long term to the character it is equipped on.

 

Your solutions with the exception of 1 will not do anything to remedy this.

 

Solution 1 is a different variant of extending the health/stamina ratio.  If only healing affects the rate of returned health than it becomes a pointless meta game of prevent the most damage possible *then* use your biggest area heal to top everyone off at the end of the fight.  If the stamina regain at the end of a fight also gives you back a portion of health then it is simply an extension of making the health bar longer.  Neither of which addresses that damage prevention is the new "healing".

 

Solution 2 doesn't address the issue at all really and instead provides even less incentive to take damage in the first place.

 

Solution 3 is pretty much the exact same thing as solution 2.

 

Solution 4 actually solves the issue.

 

Until solution 4 takes effect and health/stamina either goes the way of the dodo or gets a complete redesign healing will be simply a "newb trap."  I'd like to think that would qualify as degenerate design and one of the things Josh was trying to avoid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What the game could do is provide you with some positive reinforcement for finishing a battle conscious. Something similar to the bonus you get at an inn (but with a shorter duration).

 

Or, maybe it could remove the bonus you got at the inn if you do fall unconscious.

 

They could make downed character's fatigue level rise, which would make their efficiency drop after each downing. 

 

 

Actually, I think I've come up with the most straightforward solution. Make regenerating your stamina from unconsciousness cost a larger chunk of your health than healing the equivalent of amount of regular stamina damage does.

 

This will simulate the fact that in D&D, resurrection spells are rarer/more valuable than regular healing spells.

 

Matt I really think you're great man but you've incorrectly identified the problem.  The problem is not that it is directly better to let someone faint instead of healing him but that healing itself is essentially "degenerative" in the current health/stamina system.  The reason why allowing a member to faint *might* be a better tactic is that it stops the incoming damage to the health pool you are unable to heal.  The *real* problem is that it is essentially 100% of the time better to prevent damage rather than heal it.  Healing currently acts like a very slow acting poison in a sense that you treat an immediate problem at the expense of your long term "health".  Currently in the beta the Belt of Trollhide is the single least useful item because it is a trap.  That 6 stamina a second regen sounds amazing until you actually equip it and realize what it does long term to the character it is equipped on.

 

 

I think you might be suffering from an existential crisis. All life leads to death! Why bother going on?

 

It doesn't matter if it's your health bar, or your precious store of healing spells and health potions.

Edited by Infinitron
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, healing still has tactical value. In fact, the current design makes healing a way of essentially "buying" more tactical resources by sacrificing strategic resources - something I'm ok with. It's unorthodox, but not "degenerative" in and of itself. I think of it kind of like giving someone an adrenaline rush so they can help out in the short term but actually hurt themselves more in the long term. Actually, when you think of it that way, even my own complaint of DG goes away. So maybe we're just thinking of it wrong. :p

 

Calling healing a "poison" is disingenuous - it doesn't actually hurt you, though it does put you into a position where you can be hurt more. Again though, it's about sacrificing strategic resources (health) for a tactical (stamina) benefit. And as Infinitron pointed out, you might want to do this in some cases (where you need the tank to keep protecting the back line). Or if you're having a really large fight where the tank needs to absorb a huge amount of damage but can only do so with heals.

 

Again - the Health/Stamina system is certainly different... that doesn't make it bad. What is bad (IMO) is the unintuitive fact that optimal play involves letting your characters fall. Though as I've pointed out (weakening my earlier argument - oops :p), there are ways to think about this that don't involve thinking of healing as a "poison" but instead a tool for trading strategic for tactical resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated that damage prevention is *always* better than healing.  The tactical and strategic resources thing only comes into account if there isn't something that affects both but there is.  Damage prevention helps you in the short term it *also* helps you in the long term.  "Bubbles" are already in this game they just take the form of things like the Priest's Blessing spell.  There is no thought on when one uses a heal currently.  It's as a last resort when you've used all your your damage prevention methods.  I don't heal poison damage I use suppress affliction period end of story.  Healing isn't so much a poison but it's the equivalent of treating a symptom rather than reaching a cure or preventing the spread of a disease.  It is, by design, *always* the wrong choice.

 

You have to remember that not every player is going to be playing with a separate monitor running an excel spreadsheet.  Players naturally think healing is a good idea (because it's been that way forever).  It simply is not in PoE.  It is, by design, a trap as things currently stand.

 

 

 

I think you might be suffering from an existential crisis. All life leads to death! Why bother going on?

 

It doesn't matter if it's your health bar, or your precious store of healing spells and health potions.

 

Real cute.  Then tell me why would you use something like the Trollhide belt?

Edited by Razsius
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah, but can you name a single game in which damage prevention is not *always* better than healing? By definition, if you can avoid damage in the first place, that's better than healing it after the fact. That has always been true and will always be true - PoE isn't at all novel in this way.

 

As for healing *always* being the wrong choice, that's simply not true. Healing *always* results in additional tactical resources - i.e. stamina. It *can* results in a corresponding sacrifice of strategic resources - i.e. health (if the healed stamina is damaged again). But stating that healing is, by design, *always* the wrong choice is simply incorrect. It betrays a failure to think beyond the overall strategic level. Tactical healing can be beneficial in certain circumstances - it just isn't *always* beneficial. The current system requires more thought than just throwing all of your healing onto a damaged character. So calling it a trap is disingenuous - some players may heal themselves to death - but that would be because they just assume healing works the same in PoE as in other games (i.e. always good).

 

Healing is treating a symptom rather than reaching a cure - that's how they want it to be from a lore standpoint.

 

It's weird - in answering your posts I'm actually finding myself convincing myself away from my initial position. xD

In any case - I still think the incentives are messed up, but I don't think it's as dire as you think. This different way of using healing is just that - different.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have to remember that not every player is going to be playing with a separate monitor running an excel spreadsheet.  Players naturally think healing is a good idea (because it's been that way forever).  It simply is not in PoE.  It is, by design, a trap as things currently stand.

 

 

Although changing use paradigms in software development should be done with high care, as it easily leads lower usability level, that isn't case in computer games when we speak about systemic rules inside of the games, as games by design and purpose should offer players challenge using their own rules, which is why it isn't necessary for the games to care what rules other games have used or use or will use, because they should offer their own unique problem/s for the players to solve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real cute.  Then tell me why would you use something like the Trollhide belt?

 

To stay standing in combat for longer in case it's necessary?

 

You do realize, Razsius, that the problem isn't that your stamina regenerates? The problem is getting hit. Getting hit is bad, m'kay?

 

Things get iffy if you're standing in a position where you're taking a pounding while regenerating stamina fairly quickly, and you have no options to get to a safer spot, what with disengagement attacks and all. You can solve that by providing the player with options to use for just such a contingency. Mages have short-distance teleports, rogues have Escape, barbs have their better stam/health ratio so they can eat a disengagement attack with less strategic cost, priests have that badass group buff to Deflection, and so on.

 

I.e., you would always want to wear a trollhide belt, because it keeps your stamina topped up. However, trollhide belt or no trollhide belt, you would generally want to avoid getting beat on, because even if you had the trollhide belt, you'd still drain your Health.

Edited by PrimeJunta
  • Like 1

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the game could do is provide you with some positive reinforcement for finishing a battle conscious. Something similar to the bonus you get at an inn (but with a shorter duration).

 

Or, maybe it could remove the bonus you got at the inn if you do fall unconscious.

Or... Here's a crazy thought: They could make it so that if you go down you're dead.

 

^there's your incentive to stay upright.

Edited by Stun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or... Here's a crazy thought: They could make it so that if you go down you're dead.

^there's your incentive to stay upright.

 

Fortunately there's a handy checkbox for that in the game options. As it is, it will force you to use different tactics. Which is good, of course.

Edited by PrimeJunta

I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yeah, but can you name a single game in which damage prevention is not *always* better than healing? By definition, if you can avoid damage in the first place, that's better than healing it after the fact. That has always been true and will always be true - PoE isn't at all novel in this way.

 

No, that's completely untrue.  If you have a spell in just about any rpg that can prevent 50 damage or a spell that can heal 150 there is a choice you can make regarding which to use because they both will keep your main resource (your health, hp, whatever) from reaching a zero state.  They both "prevent" death.  Alternatively, in PoE if you have that exact same spell scenario the prevent 50 damage spell is a sure win every single time.

 

 

 

As for healing *always* being the wrong choice, that's simply not true. Healing *always* results in additional tactical resources - i.e. stamina. It *can* results in a corresponding sacrifice of strategic resources - i.e. health (if the healed stamina is damaged again). But stating that healing is, by design, *always* the wrong choice is simply incorrect. It betrays a failure to think beyond the overall strategic level. Tactical healing can be beneficial in certain circumstances - it just isn't *always* beneficial. The current system requires more thought than just throwing all of your healing onto a damaged character. So calling it a trap is disingenuous - some players may heal themselves to death - but that would be because they just assume healing works the same in PoE as in other games (i.e. always good).

 

The only time healing in PoE becomes a "tactical" value is when you're taking more damage then you can prevent to outlast whatever the encounter may be as realistically you will continue to take damage unless the fight has already ended.  In that sense, the real problem is that you didn't execute the fight strategically enough as cc, buffs, bubbles, high deflection, high DT, etc. can all help you in never reaching a state where you "need" healing.

 

 

 

Although changing use paradigms in software development should be done with high care, as it easily leads lower usability level, that isn't case in computer games when we speak about systemic rules inside of the games, as games by design and purpose should offer players challenge using their own rules, which is why it isn't necessary for the games to care what rules other games have used or use or will use, because they should offer their own unique problem/s for the players to solve.

 

I'll have to remember this the next time I play The Banner Saga.  You know just because something *can* change doesn't necessarily mean something *should* change.  Here I was thinking i'd get a spiritual successor to the IE games.. silly me whatever was I thinking.

 

 

 

I.e., you would always want to wear a trollhide belt, because it keeps your stamina topped up. However, trollhide belt or no trollhide belt, you would generally want to avoid getting beat on, because even if you had the trollhide belt, you'd still drain your Health.

 

I'd personally wear anything else really as it has the explicit problem of making it look like you aren't taking a ton of damage when you really are and yes as I've said a few times now preventing that damage is a helluva lot better idea then healing your stamina.  Thus, a belt with DT, Deflection, stats in general, etc. are all a *much* better idea.

Edited by Razsius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had one idea about the stamina/health mechanic. 

 

How about if there was a spell--perhaps a wizard or druid spell--which distributed vital force between linked individuals? 

 

Or, in game terms, equalized health in the party?

 

This way you'd be able to keep truckin' if one of your dudes got beat on rather badly, without having to treat him like a Ming vase, but health would still be a strategic resource that would deplete as you got roughed up. This would make it behave more like DnD divine healing; there you could after all decide who to heal.


I have a project. It's a tabletop RPG. It's free. It's a work in progress. Find it here: www.brikoleur.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...