Rest-Spamming: Good or No?

[CaptainMace]

 

Cooldowns is the worst thing that could ever happen to a game like this. Dragon Age combat was already soporific because of that.

 

It really depends. I would give you following examples to consider:

 

1/ First by making ability per rest, you are forcing some players to rest spam.

2/ By making rest supplies limited you are forcing some player to return to town.

3/ if player have option to rest and get everything back, then you are breaking whole per encounter, rest gameplay.

 

Either way i am not talking about cool-down from 1s-60s. I am thinking about cool-downs from 30s - 60minutes. I am thinking about giving you more options for spells within the same level. 

Example would be level 3 - AoE spell for 30 damage with 5 min cool-down or single target level 3 spell for 30 damage with 30 second cool-down (what would you pick?). Or you could have defensive spells with short cool-down to support spell hard-counters easily. Or you can have Disintegration spell with 60 min cool-down. Players would think twice before using such spells. Would Invisibility with 2 min cool-down and See invisibility with 10 second cool-down be reasonable spell combo to implement?

 

Spells with reasonable cool-downs represent real price for every player. You can metagame around various rules/re-loading game, going back to town for rest and etc.., but you can not metagame your own time. Of course if the cool-down time is trivial, its pointless price to pay.

 

 

Well I had indeed short cooldowns in mind.

The long cooldown idea rises some doubts though.

Like, if you design a game with abilities that require 30min long cooldown, and you somehow walk upon a fight that seems tough enough to use it, and then after it, couple of steps later, you realize there's an even tougher fight that shows up ? You can argue that the game should be balanced in a way that not being able to use these spells/abilities only make it harder but not impossible, but then I guess that with 'em, it becomes a piece of cake ?

Or, they're simply irrelevant and totally dispensable, which would be damn sad.

 

I really don't see how such a design could work frankly. I hear you about rest-spamming though. But I'd rather rest-spam (even though, as the beta let me know, I'm pretty sure I won't, since it takes way too much time to go back to town and resupply for my patience) than realizing my 30min long abilities don't matter in the end, or worse that they do matter and "well let's wait another 7mins for this to cooldown" which is awful coz indeed, I can't "metagame my own time".

[Lephys]

^ Yeah. That's the problem with timed cooldowns. Unless you simulate the actual passage of time, something always gets lost in translation. The "30 minutes" of actual, real-life time is meant to represent the simple idea that the caster is weary from performing that spell/ability, and will be for some time. But, in the game, the 30 minutes of traveling time in between encounters in the woods isn't really represented. So, you end up with this actually-way-longer-than-it-was-expected to be cooldown timer, relatively speaking. Plus, some players could just stare at the ground for 30 minutes, then get to cast their spell again come the next encounter, and there's absolutely no penalty for that, because time doesn't affect the characters as it would in a real world. The entirety of the passage of time isn't simulated, but the cooldown is roughly based on all the factors involved in the passage of time.

 

That's pretty much why the "per-day" thing was invented. A "day" is a more manageable segment of playtime, and it actually relates to the goings-on of the game world (although, much less so in cRPGs than in pen-and-paper games, for which the per-day mechanic was invented.)

 

But... the most accurate or... "fair" representation would be to use some sort of stamina system. Maybe you cast fireball, and it's not that you CAN'T cast it again before 30 minute are up. But maybe it takes 30 minutes (just for example; sticking to the same example as above for a cooldown), for your stamina to be completely refreshed. So, if you cast again before that, you suffer some kind of negative effect. The potency of that effect would be proportionate to the amount of stamina you were missing.

 

Anywho, even if it doesn't make perfect, measurable sense, the per-encounter limitation is a reasonable one. There's a certain value to the number of times you can do any given thing in the same fight. Thus, regardless of whether you fight another group of enemies two hours from this one, or 2 minutes from this one, you are still sufficiently limited in how "often" you can use certain abilities, in relation to how often it would be useful to use them. It'd be nice to cast infinite 9th level spells in every combat encounter you find yourself in, but you can't, because of the limitation. However, you aren't without a spell for 25 more minutes just because you happen to find another group of enemies before then. *shrug*

[Ondb]

^ Yeah. That's the problem with timed cooldowns. Unless you simulate the actual passage of time, something always gets lost in translation. The "30 minutes" of actual, real-life time is meant to represent the simple idea that the caster is weary from performing that spell/ability, and will be for some time. But, in the game, the 30 minutes of traveling time in between encounters in the woods isn't really represented. So, you end up with this actually-way-longer-than-it-was-expected to be cooldown timer, relatively speaking. Plus, some players could just stare at the ground for 30 minutes, then get to cast their spell again come the next encounter, and there's absolutely no penalty for that, because time doesn't affect the characters as it would in a real world. The entirety of the passage of time isn't simulated, but the cooldown is roughly based on all the factors involved in the passage of time.

 

That's pretty much why the "per-day" thing was invented. A "day" is a more manageable segment of playtime, and it actually relates to the goings-on of the game world (although, much less so in cRPGs than in pen-and-paper games, for which the per-day mechanic was invented.)

 

But... the most accurate or... "fair" representation would be to use some sort of stamina system. Maybe you cast fireball, and it's not that you CAN'T cast it again before 30 minute are up. But maybe it takes 30 minutes (just for example; sticking to the same example as above for a cooldown), for your stamina to be completely refreshed. So, if you cast again before that, you suffer some kind of negative effect. The potency of that effect would be proportionate to the amount of stamina you were missing.

 

Anywho, even if it doesn't make perfect, measurable sense, the per-encounter limitation is a reasonable one. There's a certain value to the number of times you can do any given thing in the same fight. Thus, regardless of whether you fight another group of enemies two hours from this one, or 2 minutes from this one, you are still sufficiently limited in how "often" you can use certain abilities, in relation to how often it would be useful to use them. It'd be nice to cast infinite 9th level spells in every combat encounter you find yourself in, but you can't, because of the limitation. However, you aren't without a spell for 25 more minutes just because you happen to find another group of enemies before then. *shrug*

 

Per-day is really not implemented. If you spend day? in game time, i do not see your abilities or spells coming back currently. 

 

However this is computer game, where processing power to calculate 1000+ cool-downs is easy. It could be done as real time / game time, this is detail.

I am just saying you cast spell, after 8 hours of game time you will get the spell back. Or you can get back some spells after 2, 4 hours of game time. Or you rest (spells will come back naturally as you will trigger 8 hours of game time) at limited locations. Or you can do it in real-time. Actually using game time seem to be better option.

 

The fact is that resting as a only action to get back spells/abilities is design coming from tabletop games. But computers does not have to have this limit....Nor have limit to force every spell to have only 2 options (per-encouter, per-day) as currently.

 

Thinking out of the box...

Edited March 5, 2015 by Ondb

[MReed]

Actually, you are thinking /within/ the box -- the system that you are suggesting is very similar to the system that Obsidian originally proposed (~ 2 years ago). I opposed it then as I do now -- this system will inevitably result in (some) players finishing an encounter and then just stand there doing absolutely nothing at all until the cool downs expire. This is far, far worse than the "problem" you are trying to fix.

 

It isn't clear whether the forum protests where the driving force behind its removal, but I suspect it was a factor.

[Lephys]

Per-day is really not implemented. If you spend day? in game time, i do not see your abilities or spells coming back currently. 

 

However this is computer game, where processing power to calculate 1000+ cool-downs is easy. It could be done as real time / game time, this is detail.

I am just saying you cast spell, after 8 hours of game time you will get the spell back. Or you can get back some spells after 2, 4 hours of game time. Or you rest (spells will come back naturally as you will trigger 8 hours of game time) at limited locations. Or you can do it in real-time. Actually using game time seem to be better option.

 

The fact is that resting as a only action to get back spells/abilities is design coming from tabletop games. But computers does not have to have this limit....Nor have limit to force every spell to have only 2 options (per-encouter, per-day) as currently.

 

Thinking out of the box...

I get what you're saying, but it's not really an outright better limitation, because you can just stand around for 30 minutes and be able to cast a spell again. Whereas, while a per-encounter limit isn't perfect, it makes sure that, relative to how often you'll need to use Spell X, the spell will be sufficiently limited.

 

Now, if we ever got a game in which, just like a DM, you had some consequences for standing around for 30 minutes, etc., then that time-limit would work beautifully. Until then, it's pros and cons on both methods.

 

I guess what I'm saying, though, is that the actual ticking-time-limit cooldown doesn't work as well as it's intended to, because the time you spend issuing commands to your characters, and looking at your inventory, etc., doesn't really translate well into game world time elapsed.

 

Imagine you wrote a story about your party's exploits. If you HAD to make your way through a forest quickly, or something unfortunate would occur, then you'd ideally have "They were beset by some foes. An ambush! Unfortunately, Philip the Mage was too magically fatigued to produce another fireball this soon after that last battle." That outcome is the whole purpose of the limitaton. "Oh, you used Fireball? Well, now suffer significant consequences for not saving it for later, etc." Or, to put it another way, the only significance that cooldown has is that you cannot use the spell whenever you wish. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose. But, in a typical cRPG, you get the story: "Luckily, the group had jogged around in the areas they'd already cleared of enemies for a while, so Philip the Mage was perfectly ready to cast another Fireball come the next ambush." Which isn't really very exciting. 8P

[CaptainMace]

The fact is that resting as a only action to get back spells/abilities is design coming from tabletop games. But computers does not have to have this limit....Nor have limit to force every spell to have only 2 options (per-encouter, per-day) as currently.

 

That's true. What I don't like about cooldowns is their ineluctability. The fact you know that using an ability/spell means you won't be able to use it again for a definite duration. Rest-based systems are more flexible in that regard, because you get to decide if you'll be able to use it for the next fight (given you are able to rest after the first one), actually take the time to meet the conditions to rest or just decide to go on without it.

An utopic cooldown system would be one that relies on several environmental/specific/action-dependant factors. A world where your ability could or could not be on cooldown after use depending on the most factors possible (the context of the action, where and when it takes place, the status of the user etc) and when it goes on cooldown, make its duration vary on different factors as well. To summarize, a non-rigid, non-automatic cooldown system.

 

But then again that sounds awfully complicated to craft. And either more to balance.

Edited March 6, 2015 by CaptainMace

[Lephys]

Even then, it begs the question "Why is THAT one spell on cooldown, but you can cast other spells?". I mean, it makes sense for some spells/abilities, like... teleport or something. "I can only bend space so often" or something. But, if it covered all abilities in lieu of the per-rest/per-encounter system, then why can you not cast another Fireball, but you can cast 5 other spells?

 

I think in that regard, some form of mana/stamina system is even better than a cooldown system. But, I'd say one that doesn't just function off of static per-second regen rates and the like would be ideal. It's kind of like cooldowns, because it represents a time-based limitation; if you're out of mana (simple example), you can't cast again until your mana has regenerated enough, depending on the cost of your ability. However, that shouldn't really regenerate ALWAYS at the same rate, like I said, and there should be a lot more contextual factors at play.

 

Perhaps, for example, the more "tired" you are, the more taxing a spell casting is. I mean, this makes sense for Stamina and physical abilities, because the more fatigued you are, the harder it is to perform a given action. But, it could be applied to magic, in a sort of mental/magical stamina sense. Thus, do you wait 'til your mana recharges a bit, or do you keep casting rapid-fire at the cost of more and more mana (relative to whatever spell you're casting -- a 5-mana spell would then cost 6, then 7, then 8, for example, and a 20-mana spell would cost 22, 24, 26, etc.). OR, along those same lines (the effects of time on "fatigue"), you could simply have a penalty for how quickly you cast a spell after a previous spell. So, you cast a spell, and some bar comes up. It starts at full, and over the course of 5 seconds, it depletes to empty. Maybe it has 5 segments, one for each second. So, however many segments are left in that bar when you cast another spell, a mana penalty is applied that's equal to (Segments * 5%) or something. So, worst-case scenario, if you rapid-fire your spells, they cost 25% more mana (after the first one).

 

Stuff like that. It works like cooldowns, but it's not quite so rigid "You cast this spell, so you cannot cast THIS spell again until X time."

 

OR you could even just apply that to cooldowns. Maybe your spell starts at a 1-second cooldown, but you've got that same 5-segment bar, and for every segment on the bar when you cast THAT spell again, your cooldown increases by 1 second. So, if you cast that 1-second spell immediately when you were able to again, you wouldn't be able to cast it for 6 seconds the next time.

 

*shrug*. There's a lot of interesting stuff that can be done with ability limiting.

[Suhiir]

Time limits are annoying in games like this because you want to take your time. You want to read item descriptions, you want to explore all over the map, you want to do every quest in every map, you want to talk to everybody, search everybody's house. If you have a time limit it can feel like you are being punished for enjoying everything the game has to offer and not just dashing from point A to point B.

I tend to agree.

I want to enjoy the game not feel I have to rush thru it.

[Suhiir]

With reguard to "per rest" abilities:

 

It's really a matter of your personal playstyle.

Some folks want to fully buff every encounter, others only use them during "boss fights" or when needed (say fire resistence when fighting a red dragon).

There's really no "right" or "wrong" approach to game-design/game-play on the matter.

[Ondb]

Actually, you are thinking /within/ the box -- the system that you are suggesting is very similar to the system that Obsidian originally proposed (~ 2 years ago). I opposed it then as I do now -- this system will inevitably result in (some) players finishing an encounter and then just stand there doing absolutely nothing at all until the cool downs expire. This is far, far worse than the "problem" you are trying to fix.

 

It isn't clear whether the forum protests where the driving force behind its removal, but I suspect it was a factor.

 

I know. I was there (~2 years ago), voting against cool-downs too.