Visual Feedback Instead of Text, Healthbars and What-not.

[Phi]

I voted for every box including other.

health Bars on "me" or health bars on other players? The worst part about health bars traditionally is the fact that you end up smashing macro's like it's second nature while staring at the bars waiting for calculations, this is integral with an over-head view and a hotbar. MO will be completely different than that with or without health bars. Visual ques, such as seeing an opponent lower his guard when he becomes weak couldn't hurt and i think if there were no health bars on other players then visual ques would be a must. I do agree that visual ques that only I can see when my own character becomes weak such as blurry or dizzy vision could do a lot of good for combat immersion, and then again some players may feel it gets in the way, but that's nothing a check box in the options menu couldn't fix.

I think health bars are a must and fit perfectly with audio ques. Say when your health drops below 30% you start breathing heavily or groaning. Even a simple audio que could eliminate the need to glance at our health indicator so often.

Wild guess here but I Imagine the health bars in MO would be similar to counter strike or half-life or elder scrolls. The indication doesn't pop up unless your "cross hairs" are set over your target, and the indicators themselves are prolly built right into your cross hairs.

[twistedurges]

Sup Victor. You're right at home man, because more or less, most of this board agrees with you. Let's hope MO turns out how it should. After the disaster AoC turned out to be, and how horrible Warhammer is going to be, people are going to be jumping for a game without useless grinding. Fuck, people that play WoW pay 15 bucks a month to spend all their time getting gear so they can actually play. That shit needs to end real soon or people are going to get burned out.

I predict independent companies producing killer MMO's, and "10 million subscribers" turning to 0 quick as a dick.

[Stump]

Originally Posted by Victor

Suggested MMO Game-play
You duel an enemy, your health drops to 0%, you now know that two more blows will end the fight, you try to keep your foe away, block his blows, dodge his attacks, you try to increase the distance between the two of you, so you can drink a potion, or maybe even apply some basic bandages to stop the bleeding, so you won't attack with disadvantages.

What is difference between 10% health, when you reach 0% you die, and 0% health, when you get few hits you will die. You just add to this guy health 10% more health.
How I am imagine:
You duel an enemy, your health drops to 0%, You drop on the ground, almost dead and waiting for your opponent decision: does he make an honourable decision and keep you alive (or even help you to heal), or he will kill you and will take the loot. and if he will decide to keep you alive, you cant just drink some potion stand up again and attack it on sight.

[Edit]: Btw, there is could be, as someone mentioned before, the health identification skill for healers. Lets say you have to hold your target on the body part, and after some time (depends on that identification skill) appears the details about the damage given to that body part. For example, if that body part have lots of stabs, you need to heal it with one methods, if the leg is broken, you need to heal it with other methods, if there is cuts other methods and etc. If there is the primary skill Healing, the secondary ones should be for types of damage to heal (cut, stab, broken and etc.).

[Xyphon]

Because this is a new MMORPG, and most of us posting here are probably MMO veterans, the "new" ideas will most likely be voted on in these types of polls, mainly because we are tired of the tried and true and want something new!

To follow with that logic, I choose the increasingly blurrier vision as the form of a health indicator. It's a very interesting idea... the more damage you take, the harder it will be to continue the fight which is very realistic.

I'm not all about creating a life simulator here where when you die you lose your character, but it seems like this would be a good overall. If anything, it would make people think about the situation before they lunge into combat, knowing that the more of a target they make of themselves, the worse they will do in combat, because of their increased vision.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by lazyasian224

hmm lets see if i can rephrase...
i mean i guess im saying at 0% you really shouldnt be able to move... either your dead or your half-alive either waiting for the finishing move or slowly regenerating until you gather enough strength to get back up on ur feet.
i think i mightve took your above idea the wrong way.
what i read was that at 0% your character has a random chance of still being able to stand, sorta like an adrenaline rush, like some of the guys were saying before, and i think i was trying to say that at that point, it would be pointless to be able to try to come back because your already so beaten back that your chances of survival are slim unless adreneline is extremely unbalanced. i guess i was trying to say that you should probably gain this ability a little earlier, just to give you a fighting chance.

Well, I guess that makes sense too. I guess we are aiming for the same end content, although, I suggested, a brief wounded stage before being defeated. Since to me, that would be exciting game-play, that before you fall to the ground, you would actually attack/move slower, because your body is so torn up, but you manage to endure one or two more blows before your body actually yields, and you fall to ground. Adrenaline, sounds like something exciting too, but how would that actually work?

Originally Posted by Rhygar

I don't appreciate sarcasm to a post of mine that in no way belittled yours. I think it is pretty obvious I made a typo. I meant "they are".

What exactly are you developing? What's that? Nothing. I see. How is it that you have an opinion then? Go read the developer journals. They mention it in there.

I don't mean to get over excited, but the typo is really obvious.

I do like your idea and that was why I mentioned it. I hope they implement a similar thing in Mortal.

I am currently helping a smaller company developing a game... but since I am under NDA I can't tell you which it is. Nonetheless, I am skilled in Nifskope, Gimp, Blender, Qskope, Map making, various other home-made developing tools etc... I’ve been modding since the MUDs back in the early 90's, however, this is merely a hobby of mine. I am "currently" writing a novel.

I didn't mean to offend you, so sorry for that. I added "heh", to show you that it was meant as a joke, with no sarcasm attached to it. Yet again, I apologize.

Originally Posted by twistedurges

Sup Victor. You're right at home man, because more or less, most of this board agrees with you. Let's hope MO turns out how it should. After the disaster AoC turned out to be, and how horrible Warhammer is going to be, people are going to be jumping for a game without useless grinding. Fuck, people that play WoW pay 15 bucks a month to spend all their time getting gear so they can actually play. That shit needs to end real soon or people are going to get burned out.

I predict independent companies producing killer MMO's, and "10 million subscribers" turning to 0 quick as a dick.

I really hope your prediction turns out to be right. Can't wait for it to happen, times are changing due to dev-tools becoming better and cheaper, and these multi-million dollar companies only care for two things, hyping their own game and create a pile of money. While these smaller companies care about the game-play and their community.

Originally Posted by Stump

What is difference between 10% health, when you reach 0% you die, and 0% health, when you get few hits you will die. You just add to this guy health 10% more health.
How I am imagine:
You duel an enemy, your health drops to 0%, You drop on the ground, almost dead and waiting for your opponent decision: does he make an honourable decision and keep you alive (or even help you to heal), or he will kill you and will take the loot. and if he will decide to keep you alive, you cant just drink some potion stand up again and attack it on sight.

[Edit]: Btw, there is could be, as someone mentioned before, the health identification skill for healers. Lets say you have to hold your target on the body part, and after some time (depends on that identification skill) appears the details about the damage given to that body part. For example, if that body part have lots of stabs, you need to heal it with one methods, if the leg is broken, you need to heal it with other methods, if there is cuts other methods and etc. If there is the primary skill Healing, the secondary ones should be for types of damage to heal (cut, stab, broken and etc.).

Wouldn't healing become too cumbersome if that's how it will turn out? I am all for not allowing in-combat-healing, so maybe if this idea is elaborated I would like it to.

[Rhygar]

Originally Posted by Victor

I am "currently" writing a novel.

I didn't mean to offend you, so sorry for that. I added "heh", to show you that it was meant as a joke, with no sarcasm attached to it. Yet again, I apologize.

Well like I said, I was probably over-reacting. No worries.

What type of novel is it?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Well like I said, I was probably over-reacting. No worries.

All good in the hood then.

What type of novel is it?

Pre-historic novel, set in Ascanza (old Greek name for Scania, which is the southern part of Sweden), based loosely on Norse mythology, Greek, Hellenistic and what-not. Not so much of a fantasy approach, rather a historical approach were magic is knowledge, and this knowledge is "magical" for a commoner. Hard to explain... nonetheless, suffering from writer's block atm, I do believe it's because I am currently playing too much computer games though. *chuckles* Hopefully that gaming "phase" is soon over so I can stroll into uncharted territories again.

[Rhygar]

Originally Posted by Victor

Pre-historic novel, set in Ascanza (old Greek name for Scania, which is the southern part of Sweden), based loosely on Norse mythology, Greek, Hellenistic and what-not. Not so much of a fantasy approach, rather a historical approach were magic is knowledge, and this knowledge is "magical" for a commoner. Hard to explain... nonetheless, suffering from writer's block atm, I do believe it's because I am currently playing too much computer games though. *chuckles* Hopefully that gaming "phase" is soon over so I can stroll into uncharted territories again.

Sounds interesting. I'm history mad. Sort of Bernard Cornwell meets Jean Auel? Be sure to do a scaly ad post when you are done! Writing a book can take a while though I guess. Good luck.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Sounds interesting. I'm history mad. Sort of Bernard Cornwell meets Jean Auel? Be sure to do a scaly ad post when you are done! Writing a book can take a while though I guess. Good luck.

Thanks. We'll see how it ends up I guess, in due time.

Anyways, back to the issues at hand... Healthbars... Mats, you still lurking here? Care to elaborate concerning the healthbars you currently have in the game?

[Wonderboy2402]

Interesting ideas, but as said by others tricky to implement.

I for one do in fact like the idea of being "knocked out" or "debilitated" with the option of being then dispatched by my opponent.

Some games like Mount&Blade have visual indications of wounds like blood splatters, but they still use health bars and cross hairs... all can be disabled for a more cinematic experience in melee.

[dawnofdeath]

I really don't agree on your suggestion to items having basicly no meaning ONLY personal skills. Then it would be no reason to make the effort to get good gear since you could just as well kill everyone with a rusty dagger if you're good enough. And what if your opponent is equal good/skilled? Flip a coin on who will win? Sure gears shouldn't be just stats and the one wielding the best gear will win (like in WoW) but it's able to make a good balance of it.
Take Age of Conan for example, gear isn't very important since the system isn't that stats built but it does give the advantage, but it certainly doesn't equals win if you have better gear.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Victor

I think we are on the same page, although look upon it slightly differently.

Think of it like this, instead of being dead at 0% as in normal MMOs. You got a chance against all odds, a chance to survive, although your character is on the verge of collapsing.

So what would you pick?
Dead at 0%
Or a chance of survival against all odds?

Let me paint you the scenario.

Generic MMO Game-Play
You duel an enemy, and die because your health reached 0%.

Suggested MMO Game-play
You duel an enemy, your health drops to 0%, you now know that two more blows will end the fight, you try to keep your foe away, block his blows, dodge his attacks, you try to increase the distance between the two of you, so you can drink a potion, or maybe even apply some basic bandages to stop the bleeding, so you won't attack with disadvantages.

three things:

1) if you're health is at 0%, and even following your example, shouldn't just one hit kill you. if you're that near death, it shouldn't take more than one hit.

2) if you couldn't manage to win the fight when you're health was at 30%, i don't really see you winning when you're health is at 0% and you can barely see or move b/c you're almost dead.

3) all in all, i don't really see the need for letting you're health get to 0%. it wouldn't be any different than scaling the health a little differently. instead of having 100 hp, meaning after taking 100 points of damage you're at 0%, you could just have 102 hp, so when you've taken 100 points of damage, you're at about 2% health, but you're still (barely) alive.

i guess i just don't see much point in this. if you suggested something like CoD4's "last stand" thing, where you're basically dead, but you have a little time to take the other guy down, then that'd be a little different, but i wouldn't really like that in a game like MO (swinging at someone's ankles w/ a sword while you're lying prostrate on the ground just sounds a little silly).

when you're health is 0, it should just end there.

[Shinzon]

I really don't agree on your suggestion to items having basicly no meaning ONLY personal skills. Then it would be no reason to make the effort to get good gear since you could just as well kill everyone with a rusty dagger if you're good enough. And what if your opponent is equal good/skilled? Flip a coin on who will win? Sure gears shouldn't be just stats and the one wielding the best gear will win (like in WoW) but it's able to make a good balance of it.
Take Age of Conan for example, gear isn't very important since the system isn't that stats built but it does give the advantage, but it certainly doesn't equals win if you have better gear.

I don't think you are getting MO's vision right now, stick around. Thats the point: if you are godlike, you have a chance of killing a fully decked out person in expensive gear. Gear does nothing but give you an edge. You want better gear because it gives you a slight advantage...

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

three things:

1) if you're health is at 0%, and even following your example, shouldn't just one hit kill you. if you're that near death, it shouldn't take more than one hit.

0% health, means just that your body is broken, you would swing/move slower, you are wounded. One or two more blows, would bring you to your knees. Then your opponent would decide what to do with you, either pierce your heart or take your head and put it on top his fireplace for bragging rights or what-ever.

2) if you couldn't manage to win the fight when you're health was at 30%, i don't really see you winning when you're health is at 0% and you can barely see or move b/c you're almost dead.

You never know, what if both of you were down to 0% health. Two warriors been at it for 10 minutes, both torn up, both attack each other slower/move slower because they are exhausted. One or two more hits on either on them decide the outcome.

It's the excitement I am after. This sounds exciting to me.

3) all in all, i don't really see the need for letting you're health get to 0%. it wouldn't be any different than scaling the health a little differently. instead of having 100 hp, meaning after taking 100 points of damage you're at 0%, you could just have 102 hp, so when you've taken 100 points of damage, you're at about 2% health, but you're still (barely) alive.

Change 0% to 30% as I suggested first then. If that makes it better, the only one complaining about this is you, I believe it's my fault, for changing the numbers and for trying to explain this easier.

i guess i just don't see much point in this. if you suggested something like CoD4's "last stand" thing, where you're basically dead, but you have a little time to take the other guy down, then that'd be a little different, but i wouldn't really like that in a game like MO (swinging at someone's ankles w/ a sword while you're lying prostrate on the ground just sounds a little silly).

I agree, that was not what I suggested though.

when you're health is 0, it should just end there.

That's a matter of opinion.

[Lachrymose]

well, victor, i guess i just disagree then. something about two characters barely able to lift their swords at each other, but still fighting for an extra 3 minutes doesn't really sound exciting to me.

granted, i think fights should last a decent amount of time, i just don't think it sounds so great if your just staggering around for a couple minutes.

[Rathius]

The way I see it, is that it gives the option of letting your assailant live. If someone is pestering you, you have the posibility of beating them to the ground without killing them. Depending on how quickly you bested them, they might stay away. You could also use it as a bargaining tool. Give me information on X and I let you live, if not I kill you and take everything you have. (Especially useful if you know what they carry.)

Not everyone needs to be a murderer, heh.

[dawnofdeath]

Originally Posted by Rathius

The way I see it, is that it gives the option of letting your assailant live. If someone is pestering you, you have the posibility of beating them to the ground without killing them. Depending on how quickly you bested them, they might stay away. You could also use it as a bargaining tool. Give me information on X and I let you live, if not I kill you and take everything you have. (Especially useful if you know what they carry.)

Not everyone needs to be a murderer, heh.

I second this. Tho it might sound good in paper but how it would be in game is unsure

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

well, victor, i guess i just disagree then. something about two characters barely able to lift their swords at each other, but still fighting for an extra 3 minutes doesn't really sound exciting to me.

granted, i think fights should last a decent amount of time, i just don't think it sounds so great if your just staggering around for a couple minutes.

Ack, who said the grand finale would last for a couple of minutes? You assume too much! It could end in a heart-beat, it's a matter of tweaking the game-play, to make it feel just right. Have you ever experienced something like this before in a game? Most likely not.

Who knows, you might love those extra 10 seconds, watching your foe limp, swing his sword pathetically at you, and you move in, taking your time, delivering the final blow, he falls down to his knees, begging for his life... and well... you stomp him like Gears of War and loot his panties.

[Rhygar]

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

I really don't agree on your suggestion to items having basicly no meaning ONLY personal skills. Then it would be no reason to make the effort to get good gear since you could just as well kill everyone with a rusty dagger if you're good enough.

I don't think that will be the case though. Better weapons will have a bit of an advantage in MO anyway, but not significantly as you say.

You talk about "making an effort" to get good gear? This is not WoW so your goals are not quest/level/gear based. Gear will, and should, only be there as tools for you to accomplish your other goals in-game.

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

And what if your opponent is equal good/skilled? Flip a coin on who will win? Sure gears shouldn't be just stats and the one wielding the best gear will win (like in WoW) but it's able to make a good balance of it.

Flip a coin? So you are saying two equally skilled players cannot be differentiated to complete a fight and therefore you need gear to do it? In that case you do want to make the game gear based because that becomes the deciding factor.

Fortunately that whole line of thinking is flawed as even if two players are equally skilled there will always be a winner. One of the two might be playing less well on the day, get tired or manage to outwit his opponent. A skill based fight will always result in a fair result.

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

Take Age of Conan for example, gear isn't very important since the system isn't that stats built but it does give the advantage, but it certainly doesn't equals win if you have better gear.

AoC is NOT comparable to Mortal! It is level based and weapons are automatically restricted to certain level ranges. Despite that if you did have equally skilled players then the gear will make the difference which is BS. As I said above their is no such thing as a stalemate in a skilled-fight. Some one will win eventually. You don't need to make gear the deciding factor.

Besides there are other systems you could put in place that will benefit a player with "better" weapons/armour/clothes. Maybe some sort of status benefit. Of course this would add a whole new dimension to a game and would become a discussion all by it self.

I agree though there can be a slight benefit. But not ever in the line of +40 such as in AoC which could easily be over a 10% gain. The most you might find is a +2 or +4. I am guessing skills will be capped at a 100? Can't remember precisely. Probably hasn't been confirmed.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Rathius

The way I see it, is that it gives the option of letting your assailant live. If someone is pestering you, you have the posibility of beating them to the ground without killing them.

Well, if you have defeated him, you got 60 seconds on you to decide, live or die. Since he would be bleeding to death.

Depending on how quickly you bested them, they might stay away. You could also use it as a bargaining tool. Give me information on X and I let you live, if not I kill you and take everything you have. (Especially useful if you know what they carry.)

Not everyone needs to be a murderer, heh.

Nope, that's why I suggested you could actually do some basic first-aid on your foe, if you want him to live (letting him regain his strength slowly, thus he would be no threat to you right away.)

[dawnofdeath]

Originally Posted by Rhygar

I don't think that will be the case though. Better weapons will have a bit of an advantage in MO anyway, but not significantly as you say.

That is what I am saying, it should have a bit of an advantage (not too great) but his statement pretty much means he want to be able to kill someone with epic gear and sword etc with a rusy dagger with crappy stats and that doesn't make sense at all in a mmo. Not to mention the crafting would be pretty much useless. Who would spent lots of coin and time to craft good weapons if it didn't bring any noticeable difference or than visual?

You talk about "making an effort" to get good gear? This is not WoW so your goals are not quest/level/gear based. Gear will, and should, only be there as tools for you to accomplish your other goals in-game.

God you talk to deaf ears now since I feel you mistake me for a wow idiot that knows nothing. Or maybe you're that type? In which case getting good gear is effortless in wow and that game is VERY gear based, which sucks. But my statement was about finding a balance. Gear shouldnt mean the outcome of the battle but it should give you an advantage.


Flip a coin? So you are saying two equally skilled players cannot be differentiated to complete a fight and therefore you need gear to do it? In that case you do want to make the game gear based because that becomes the deciding factor.

You can read my previous answers and maybe I don't have to repeat myself on this one.

Fortunately that whole line of thinking is flawed as even if two players are equally skilled there will always be a winner. One of the two might be playing less well on the day, get tired or manage to outwit his opponent. A skill based fight will always result in a fair result.



AoC is NOT comparable to Mortal! It is level based and weapons are automatically restricted to certain level ranges. Despite that if you did have equally skilled players then the gear will make the difference which is BS. As I said above their is no such thing as a stalemate in a skilled-fight. Some one will win eventually. You don't need to make gear the deciding factor.

Why shouldn't it be comparable just because it has levels? Sure MO doesnt have lvls but you need skill points to wield a certain weapon and I can't really see how that is relevant to this. And this is the last time I will say this, I never said gear should be the deciding factor but it should give an ADVANTAGE. IMO if 2 somewhat equal skilled players fought, one dressed with lvl 10 green equips and the other high lvl epics. Should not the one with more advanced gear have some advantage? Otherwise what is the point to craft new and better gear?

Hm my answers got in the quote