Injury System is way too brutal

[IndiraLightfoot]

Four injuries == Death is simply silly to me.

 

This waters down the meaning of the different kinds of injuries. It becomes a cold 4-rung death-countdown ladder. I reckon, injuries do the job on their own.

Absolutely no need to add an inflexible death ticker to the injury system.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Idea:

 

Eliminate character death entirely. It serves no purpose anyway except forcing a reload. As long as Eder's pipe is the loading screen animation it doesn't really make sense for him to die.

 

New injuries accrue infinitely each time you die, with a minimum health of 1%

 

If you have more than four injuries, you have to rest at an Inn to get down to four injuries, then rest again to remove the remainder.

 

Alternatively, each rest cures four injuries at a go.

[hilfazer]

But... death is a crucial part of the cycle.
You guys are necromancers!
 
"Necromancy
Despite the assumed natural cycle of things, there are individuals in the world of Project Eternity who either want to know more about that cycle or who choose to alter that cycle"
Source: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/328976

[IndiraLightfoot]

Yeah. While I really dig the new injury system, there's no need for some artificial character death threshold.

Just think of that police officer in Central Park who was hit by lightning like seven times during his career.

4 injuries == recuperating rest at inn, ship medic, healer's care (abbey), mighty priest (temple) - that would be alright, I reckon.

Edited December 3, 2017 by IndiraLightfoot

[Lamppost in Winter]

I would've been down for removing character death in POE1 (except maybe for hirelings), because a companion dies and none of the others give a crap. The party banter doesn't recognise it either; Eder and Zahua joked about Durance as if he were still alive for me.

 

Apparently PoE2 is incorporating the relationship system and character deaths, so I at least want to see how that plays out.

[Karkarov]

"Stop sucking" is too meaningful advice.

That's a load of crap Junta.

 

How about that fight where I was sneaking, move my tank forward to the enemy caster, no traps (that I can see, god knows no one is going to perception spot them), enemy spots me as I almost reach melee, WOOPS Mercenary Fighter steps on a magic trap one step after being spotted!  Here have two injuries for your trouble, 50% hp loss, -30 accuracy, and be locked in combat.

 

Yeah, "get good" sure would do a lot to change that scenario.

 

Here is the problem.  Because resting isn't restricted, traps are overpowered.  Also the Eternity 1 comparisons are laughable.  Springing a trap in Eternity 1 could not give me two stat debuffs and take 50% of my hp.  Springing a trap in Deadfire can, and WILL.  In Eternity you probably got a save if nothing else, in Deadfire?  What save, what are you talking about?

 

I played Eternity with multiple characters at two or even three injuries over a long stretch of a couple dungeon floors, holding people back, playing conservative, it could work.  Deadfire?  F no, I am tempted to rest at one injury, at two it is basically required if it is your tank character with the injuries. 

 

"Playing badly" has nothing to do with it as you CAN get two injuries from one trap, that you can't see yourself, and requires insane perception to spot.  The fact that you have one less character doesn't help, it was far easier to play around two injured characters in Eternity than it is Deadfire.

 

One of multiple things needs to happen.

 

1: They need to make it easier to spot (maybe disarm, don't know never spotted one so far as I didn't roll with 16+ perception) traps.  If I could actually spot them I could at least try to disarm them, many of them I can't see to walk around, I can't see any to actually disarm.

2: They need to drastically lower the trap penalties, while also doing something to limit rests.

3: They need to leave rests alone, but lower the trap penalties at least slightly.

4: If nothing else at least give characters a save to avoid the injury.

[Gromnir]

kinda an aside, but am thinking trap detection issues may be less significant than they seem.  our mercenary party is not well geared compared to a similar level'd poe party.  am not saying deadfire will have same 1007 progression as poe, but is reasonable to assume analogous gearing. resting bonuses is not active and food choices is also limited.   'tween resting bonuses, food and gear, am doubting a 16 perception check for traps will be any real challenge for the typical level 6-8 deadfire party.  

 

*shrug*

 

am thinking trap detection balance is current misleading.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 3, 2017 by Gromnir

[Katarack21]

But... death is a crucial part of the cycle.

You guys are necromancers!

Mother always said to make new friends.

[Aramintai]

Well, I doubt devs will remove death penalty, because allegedly companions should react to deaths in the party in POE2. Wouldn't want that work go to waste now would we? 

 

And besides, death penalty is good when you're soloing or playing on a high difficulty - it's an extra challenge.

 

Going back to brutal injuries draining 25% health is also not a good idea as beta feedback showed.

 

Personally, I don't have any ideas how to make it better other than perhaps changing 4 injuries=death penalty to a 4 knockouts per rest=death penalty. Or simply accepting that not every mechanic in the game should be realistic.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Aramintai

[Wormerine]

 

And besides, death penalty is good when you're soloing or playing on a high difficulty - it's an extra challenge.

 

...

 

If you solo, than injury perma-death is completely irrelevant as if you are knocked down you loose game anyway.

 

I wouldn’t say that perma death adds any challange. You are not in danger of dying, you are in danger of resting a lot.

[dragubaba]

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother? Lots of things could be said about removing one's head from a bodily orifice. You might have a slight overthinking problem there mates.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother? Lots of things could be said about removing one's head from a bodily orifice. You might have a slight overthinking problem there mates.

 

Oh, I realize it's a bit silly but mechanically it makes sense; everyone reloads deaths anyway, so they functionaly "stop" gameplay; mechanically it's best to either eliminate them or turn them into a "knockout" type situation where you have to go get a special heal or a super rest or whatever. It'd be different if this were Darkest Dungeon and the companions were interchangeable and replaceable but they aren't.

 

Only real argument against from a mechanics perspective is allowing for ironman runs.

[dragubaba]

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother? Lots of things could be said about removing one's head from a bodily orifice. You might have a slight overthinking problem there mates.

 

Oh, I realize it's a bit silly but mechanically it makes sense; everyone reloads deaths anyway, so they functionaly "stop" gameplay; mechanically it's best to either eliminate them or turn them into a "knockout" type situation where you have to go get a special heal or a super rest or whatever. It'd be different if this were Darkest Dungeon and the companions were interchangeable and replaceable but they aren't.

 

Only real argument against from a mechanics perspective is allowing for ironman runs.

 

That's the thing that makes you try and avoid death though, the possibility of having to reload. Punishment for failure is time spent in vain. That's how it's always been in video games.

[Tigranes]

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother? Lots of things could be said about removing one's head from a bodily orifice. You might have a slight overthinking problem there mates.

 

Oh, I realize it's a bit silly but mechanically it makes sense; everyone reloads deaths anyway, so they functionaly "stop" gameplay; mechanically it's best to either eliminate them or turn them into a "knockout" type situation where you have to go get a special heal or a super rest or whatever. It'd be different if this were Darkest Dungeon and the companions were interchangeable and replaceable but they aren't.

 

Only real argument against from a mechanics perspective is allowing for ironman runs.

 

 

No, it doesn't mechanically make sense. I want my games to pose a challenge, which requires meaningful fail-states. The fact that you can reload instead of quitting the game forever doesn't mean it's the same thing to just get rid of dying. 

 

Also, I would much prefer to reload and try again than... I don't know, you lose, you get up, and then you trot back to an inn to get a super rest. Sounds like it changes nothing except wasting more time, such that I'd reload anyway?

 

The bit about how it's silly Eder can die because it's Eder's pipe on the loading screen is just putting priorities head-to-arse backwards. 

 

Some people also like to let companions die permanently and roleplay that. They might want to ironman in a variety of ways. They might want to fight a battle knowing that there is a risk of death and thus a meaningful challenge, even if ultimately you can reload your way out of it. Removing death lets down a lot of different players with a lot of different playstyles, and it doesn't really "make sense", either.

 

For the more specific issue of whether injuries should cause death, I'm ambivalent. i'd agree that the most important thing is making injuries themselves debilitating that they matter even without a death counter; after that players can choose whether they're the kind of person who reload/rest after every single injury, or they soldier on and see how bad it can get, etc.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

That's the thing that makes you try and avoid death though, the possibility of having to reload. Punishment for failure is time spent in vain. That's how it's always been in video games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be more meaningful if there were an in-game challenge to meet instead of just a reload? "Eder has been knocked out, now you have to get him back to an Inn to recuperate" type thing? Generally speaking, penalties that function in-game are more engaging than ones that kick you out of the game and force a reload. This isn't an arcade; there's no need to force players to insert more quarters.

 

 

That said, yeah, Ironman etc. is a valid argument for including character death, but that's easily handled with a checkbox.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Dr. Hieronymous Alloy

[Katarack21]

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother?

 

Permanent character death *SUCKS*.

[KingDiamond]

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother?

 

Permanent character death *SUCKS*.

 

No.

[Katarack21]

 

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother?

 

Permanent character death *SUCKS*.

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

Wow, look. We accomplished so much.

[Answermancer]

I don't really feel strongly about death either way.

 

You certainly need some sort of heavy penalty for "dying," but I do think that permadeath is a rather pointless one unless you are playing ironman or roleplaying, in which case it could be a toggle.

 

That said, if you got rid of it, what would the heavy penalty be? In theory it would be nice if it made you use up valuable resources, but chances are people would just reload anyway, so what's the difference? Might as well leave it as death at that point for simplicity's sake.

[Dr. Hieronymous Alloy]

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother?

Permanent character death *SUCKS*.

I think there's a place for it, just not in character based story games, except as part of scripted special encounters. Eder dies as a plot point is one thing, Eder dies as a random accident you just reload.

[KingDiamond]

 

 

 

Wait, what? Remove death? From a game where everyone is trying to kill eachother?

 

Permanent character death *SUCKS*.

 

No.

 

Yes.

 

Wow, look. We accomplished so much.

 

I just wanted to express my liking for permanent character death.  Our actions and mistakes should have consequences.

[Katarack21]

Truth. Aerith dying is emotional and impactful. Viconia dies, I reload.

[KingDiamond]

Truth. Aerith dying is emotional and impactful. Viconia dies, I reload.

You reload, I don't.

[Answermancer]

You reload, I don't.

Which is fine, I mean that's basically what Iron Man mode is anyway, but you're in such a minuscule minority that I don't think designing the game around you is much of an argument.

 

But like I said earlier, death is simple to understand, it makes Iron Man (and your playstyle) work, and the vast majority of people would reload with any heavy penalty anyway, so we may as well stick with death.

[Karkarov]

Not sure how this turned into a question of removing death.  Of course it should not be removed, absolutely silly.  This is a game where you can save any time you want as long as you are not in combat, if you are really torn up over a death you can just reload.  For those who want to play with their mistakes, they just accept the death and the consequences.