How can you eliminate the need of healing in combat? It’s simple.

[dawnofdeath]

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Raids? Where am I? Damn it did I go to the WoW forum again...

Raids will be in MO as well, or did you plan to take on legendary beasts by yourself? good luck with that

[Vanndal]

I understand that point Lachrymose for potions, but if you consider the drinking time as casting time, and if you consider diminishing returns for potions (I would had been more severe and say if you overdose you deal damage to your system :P as if you drank poison). Then it would be highly similar to a spell being cast on you.

If you take prozac and other alternative drugs at your doctor recommended time, I'm sure as hell it would have equal effect. Until you prescribed a different pill.

-----

However since I've already proved that medical science does not actually "heal" you, but prevent you from taking any more damage from it's own origin of injury, even to this day we do not heal anyone, but just try to prevent, or help your body defeat viral infections and bacteria infections, but at the same time anti-bodies destroy your body as much as it helps you, but the pros are much more important then the cons in this case since certain infections could mean death, while if you take a drug that can help your body defeat the cause, you could naturally regenerate from it.

Which brings us to the question that if healing should be overruled in combat, how are they even logical out of combat?

If you completely remove healing from the game, then should all creatures regenerate like humans in real time? If you break a leg, with medical attention, then you'll be fine in 3 months-ish? The duration of recovery will be different for whatever injury you inflicted with and your natural body regeneration.

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

I understand that point Lachrymose for potions, but if you consider the drinking time as casting time, and if you consider diminishing returns for potions (I would had been more severe and say if you overdose you deal damage to your system :P as if you drank poison).

yea, someone else mentioned that and i think it's a good idea. rather than having a "cooldown" between drinking potions, let them drink 10 potions when they're getting owned, but they'll die trying...

same thing with potions though, i don't think you're health should just magically shoot up 30%, rather it should just make your health regen very fast. i don't like the idea that as you are swinging your sword at someone to deliver the final blow, he pops a potion and before you hit him half his health is restored..

---

EDIT: here's my edit in response to your edit.. actually, i'm not sure what to say. i never said i was against healing.. i've been trying to defend healing and say how i think it can work..

in fact... i'm going to post this one more time, just to make this easier although i think this is the 3rd time i've posted it in this thread (and it's in my sig): Healing

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

Context huh... So you want me to bring up the bible and tell you which page jesus cured someone's eyes? No offense, but... isn't that excess?

Rathius already replied to this statement of yours.

That is because he knew the source of the wound came from an evil creature, and he did not have the ability to cure such a wound. If you cast a spell that has no effects, you'll most likely look at it afterwards to see what is wrong, while you could also look before you cast it to see what is wrong.

Speculations yet again, his healing eased Frodo’s pain, but it did not fully cure it because the wound caused by the weapon was beyond his powers.

Name the page, I own all the books.

How about I name the chapter, so you can be inspired with literature rather than generic MMO game-play…
The Return of the King, Chapter VIII, The House of Healing.

Well... I dunno, but... I don't think everyone who plays a healer has a medical degree. Heck it would make for a lot of fun, but if every injures required you to go to a hospital, be it a scratch on your arm, or a broken nose to be diagnosed then medical personnel would be roaming the streets like police looking for people who are injured, instead of responding to a call through the phone.

You are taking it to the extreme here. Naturally, we would be able to heal our defeated friends and our own minor wounds, with basic bandages as well, but magic healing would speed up the down time. It all comes down to what is practical and fun for game-play.

Player skill does matter even if healing exist. Except having a healer would make the player battle that much longer and that much different since a healer can at any time nurture another to health over time.

Player A and B duel, Player C enters the area, he casts heal on Player B.
Notice a problem here?

And, wrong assumption yet again from you, that player battle would last longer if heals are in. It entirely depends on how they implement the game-play. For an example, a battle between two players, could theoretically, last a very long time with no heals at all. Since A) They can block blows B) They can dodge blows C) They can parry thus nullifying the damage all together.

I don't disagree with this statement, but believe it is highly revolutionary to include this to the modern games.

That’s what is currently being tested with the Network Solution they acquired by Epic games in China. Game-play such as this can be found in Dark Messiah, Severance: Blade of Darkness.

Skill is still required even with healing, but that is only true if healing is not so powerful, both in and out of combat. I do agree that players should take less damage in combat to prevent instant deaths like in so many of the current mmorpgs in existence. However with hitboxes implemented, how much damage you take coexist with where you are getting hit, and that would mean it would be possible to die in a few hits from a precise attack to the head without protection.
And as I suggested earlier, if you take such a hit, you can try to disengage from combat and get to your healer to recover, however if you can not disengage from combat, it wouldn't make you lose 100% due to a few lucky, hacked, or a few skillful strikes. Since your healer can try to aid you, but does not prevent you from dying outright if the opponent scores another devastating blow against you. However if healing were to be allowed it should not be extremely effective to the point of healing massive amount of damage that you have taken, both in and out of combat.

Yet again…
Player A and B duel, Player C enters the area, he casts heal on Player B.
Notice a problem here? Where is the skill? Is Player B more skilled than Player A?

Hitboxes are also currently being tested by the devs. How will an insta-heal work if they need to target a specific body part while their patient is in full swing in combat. How do you solve that problem?

I have too, but most these type of games equate to 10 second battles, or various FPS games where you know where your enemies are and they go in rounds where you are automatically healed after you KNOW you eliminated the 8 enemies on the other team.

Apparently you have not, since battles in these type of games can last up to 5-10 minutes, if two skilled players are playing each other. It’s all about reading your opponent and reacting in time.

However with your suggested advance healing system, it would mean that injures will occur in hitbox ratio, and such things as your leg being lobbed off is possible, and hell I would love to lob off someone's leg in melee combat, but it would also mean a fireball would knock everyone in range prone like what would happen to someone standing next to a bomb.

As I stated above, that is what they currently are testing. Concerning the fireball, what’s stopping the Warrior from blocking it with his shield, or the ranger from dodging away to safety?

However this discussion is about why healing should not be needed in combat and how to implement it, but I'm arguing against that statement, which means we still have a discussion.

And your argument is weak.

Cried foul? When?

Hastily judged an idea.

Clearly you misunderstood alot of it, hence all the questions now...

----
Another question arises from this discussion, how will you deal with down time after each combat? Surely there should be some form of down time, as to prevent people from running from battle to battle within seconds after being patched up by both the means we have suggested. That way battles would not last indefinitely as long as there are people who could use first aid and magical means to resurrect targets from death.

After the battle, warriors would apply bandages on their minor cuts and bruises, healers would speed up the process of recuperating defeated players, resurrecting dead players. Patching up a severely injured player might take a few seconds, this will gradually give the strength back to that player, of course, and with magic this process would be quicker.
Warriors would also look over their equipment; repair it to their best ability so it won’t break in the next encounter.

This question arises because, during guild wars, it is possible to be zergged and killed by many enemies. No matter how skilled you are, you can not dodge a arrow rain that is on it's impending position to strike you. However you could prevent it if you knew it was coming.

As a mage you could cast deflect arrows/projectiles, as a warrior you could block with your shield, as a ranger you could try to parry the incoming projectiles or dodge. If there are too many archers, I would suggest, running away is the best option.

If healing out of combat is the only possibility, then how fast should it be?

A few seconds, if you are attacked during this period of time, it is interrupted.

If it were near instant (be it within 2 mins, including resurrection), then the battles would be a massive respawn battle and never end.

No, since defeated players can be finished off, killed so to speak. And defeated players that have recently been patched up, are weak, since it requires time to fully regain your strength.

If resurrection is completely removed from the game, then no one will want to play the game since it's perma-death. However if healing someone takes longer then a resurrection out of combat, then wouldn't it be better to die and get revived instead?

Now why would you want to die when it’s better to get patched up, then resurrection? Naturally it would take longer to regain your strength if you have been resurrected, also resurrection would require more time to perform, since it’s more complex than patching up a defeated player.

I know there is such a thing as complete looting that could possibly effect this, but how will you loot someone in the middle of combat when you know you'll get struck by at least 20+ players for trying to do so. Also what happens if their buddies loot their buddies to prevent you from being able to rob them blind? Then all your hardwork would have been in vain for killing them since they will get resurrected and their friend would pass them back their equipments.

If you want to loot a player, then defeat him and then deliver the death-blow. If your opponents are busy attacking your buddies, feel free to loot him.

So the question goes from not just in combat healing, but what about out of combat healing? It is still somewhat iffy in both cases, or rather leave both in that way the world will be consistent instead of inconsistent.

Healing a defeated player would require some time.
Ressurecting a dead player would require some more time.

If you are healed, you would moderately regain your strength.
If you are resurrected you would slowly regain your strength.

Please, next post, keep it short, and discuss one aspect of it at a time. It gets confusing to reply to a wall of text.
Thanks.

[Vanndal]

Victor how can you say I am not something when you don't know who I am?

Also how is a argument weak when you don't even try to prove it, but simply say, your argument is weak.

Also your little example of Person A fights Person B, and Person C comes in and heals Person B is a very weak example. How? Say Person B stuns Person A, and drinks a potion that increases his health recovery speed, while shortly after throws a net at Person A and snares him. Then Person B then continues to attack Person A so that person A can not heal in the same manner. Then Person C instead of being a healer comes in and shoots a arrow at Person B. Person B is severely injured by the arrow, and Person A finishes off Person B even though Person B had tactical advantage over Person A to begin with.

See where your argument is flawed? Or do I need to explain, if you do not see where your argument is flawed then instead of saying "If Situation A occurs and Situation B happens shortly after, it is flawed." You didn't even provide an argument to begin with, all you are saying is "you are wrong, because I said so".

---

Also define "some time" on healing a player out of combat, obviously you didn't state how long would that time be. Sometime as in 1 second? 3 Years? 10 Years? Half a century?

Define the strength you are using in this context as well, since strength could mean a large variety of different meanings.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

Victor how can you say I am not something when you don't know who I am?

Also how is a argument weak when you don't even try to prove it, but simply say, your argument is weak.

Claiming that heals pro-long fights, and without heals battles wouldn't last long. Is simply a weak arguement, it means you haven't read the thread at all, neither do you understand what is proposed.

And please quit editing your posts... argh.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

Victor how can you say I am not something when you don't know who I am?

Also how is a argument weak when you don't even try to prove it, but simply say, your argument is weak.

Also your little example of Person A fights Person B, and Person C comes in and heals Person B is a very weak example. How? Say Person B stuns Person A, and drinks a potion that increases his health recovery speed, while shortly after throws a net at Person A and snares him. Then Person B then continues to attack Person A so that person A can not heal in the same manner. Then Person C instead of being a healer comes in and shoots a arrow at Person B. Person B is severely injured by the arrow, and Person A finishes off Person B even though Person B had tactical advantage over Person A to begin with.

See where your argument is flawed? Or do I need to explain, if you do not see where your argument is flawed then instead of saying "If Situation A occurs and Situation B happens shortly after, it is flawed." You didn't even provide an argument to begin with, all you are saying is "you are wrong, because I said so".

You are simply stuck in your MMO game-play. It's futile to discuss this further, I am afraid. Thanks for voting in the thread. We will have to agree to disagree.

---

Also define "some time" on healing a player out of combat, obviously you didn't state how long would that time be. Sometime as in 1 second? 3 Years? 10 Years? Half a century?

This is very close to trolling. Naturally some time means, it has to be tested, to make it feel right for the game-play.

Define the strength you are using in this context as well, since strength could mean a large variety of different meanings.

Strength as in recovering slowly your health and your stats.

[dawnofdeath]

Victor what is the purpose of this thread now? After nagging the devs on the irc they told you that they have looked at your suggestion but turned you down. Sure speculate all you want I'm just saying

[Victor]

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

Victor what is the purpose of this thread now? After nagging the devs on the irc they told you that they have looked at your suggestion but turned you down. Sure speculate all you want I'm just saying

They haven't turned it down, rather Henrik said this is something similar to what they are working on, so I do not feel it's my idea, rather a shared vision for game-play.

The thread's purpose was to discuss this type of game-play, and also see what ideas the community could come up with to add to it. And also to get a feel, of how many gamers out there that want to break away from the generic MMO game-play and have something completely fresh and exciting.

Thank you for participating.

[dawnofdeath]

Originally Posted by Victor

They haven't turned it down, rather Henrik said this is something similar to what they are working on, so I do not feel it's my idea, rather a shared vision for game-play.

The thread's purpose was to discuss this type of game-play, and also see what ideas the community could come up with to add to it. And also to get a feel, of how many gamers out there that wants to break away from the generic MMO game-play and have something completely fresh and exciting.

Thank you for participating.

Yeah but still I think you should cool down a little, I doupt it will get easier to be listen to by the devs if you keep nagging them. They know what they are doing (hopefully). Wouldn't strain myself too hard for that beta key

[Lachrymose]

@victor&vanndal: take it to the irc you two! this thread is dead to me now.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

Yeah but still I think you should cool down a little, I doupt it will get easier to be listen to by the devs if you keep nagging them. They know what they are doing (hopefully). Wouldn't strain myself too hard for that beta key

I am perfectly calm, just replying to posts in this thread.

[Traceur]

first of all: this is a skill based gameplay, which means healing has nothing to do with creating "class inter-dependency" - if there is instant-healing then people will use it on themselves. this means that health is not only a result of health-related attributes, but also a result of the healing-spells related attribute and healing skill multiplied by it's fraction of the mana determining attributes:
health = (health determining attributes) + (healing skills and skill-affecting attributes determining the return of health points for each mana points consumed) * (mana determining attributes).
basically, all this means is that we have a really long health bar - much bigger then we initially see - with minor interactivity (click healing on self) and an illusion of a realistic amount of health (which is unrealistically recoverable). the more health you have, the less affectiveness healing needs to be, and if you give players the full amount of health which the combat system requires, then the affectiveness of healing spells needed reaches zero, meaning there's no need for healing anyway, regardless of the combat system.

going back to basics: what determines the amount of health needed by the combat system?simple: the affectiveness of defensive actions relatively to offensive actions.
the more affective defensive actions are in relation to possible offenses, the less health you need in combat. it also involves much more potential interactivity then "click self healing" (move avatar to dodge, click to block, etc') , and can involve a higher degree of group tactics then group healing (move to defend friend). this means:

combat longevity = [(affectivness of defensive actions) / (affectivenss of offensive actions)] * [(health determining attributes) + (healing skills and skill-affecting attributes determining the return of health points for each mana points consumed) * (mana determining attributes)]

what the OP is asking for, is for MO to achieve it's combat longevity aim through increasing the first attribute (defensive actions), enabling it to have a realistic 3rd attribute (health) without all the attributes after it. it makes mathematical sense and gameplay sense.

[Vanndal]

@Victor, no offense but obviously I'm not stuck, since I'm obviously asking for you to elaborate instead of bashing me. Which is what you're doing, but hey, it's your style of gameplay. I was just trying to open your mind on how it would not decrease any defensive efficiency, all it does it increase longevity.

First of all, heals do prolong fights, since it keeps people alive.
Second, defensive abilities prolong fight too, since it keeps people alive.
Third, a health pool also prolong fights, since it keeps you alive.

One of the major things that makes fight end faster is attacks that deal great amounts of damage.

@Traceur, god damn, sorry to swear for the kids but that equation of combat longevity is amazing and thoroughly explained. +rep to Traceur. Trust me this isn't just some random rep bonus, but it can definitely help out a lot of game developers to use that formula. (Not saying it's final, since all formulas can be further upgraded).

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

@Victor, no offense but obviously I'm not stuck, since I'm obviously asking for you to elaborate instead of bashing me. Which is what you're doing, but hey, it's your style of gameplay. I was just trying to open your mind on how it would not decrease any defensive efficiency, all it does it increase longevity.

First of all, heals do prolong fights, since it keeps people alive.
Second, defensive abilities prolong fight too, since it keeps people alive.
Third, a health pool also prolong fights, since it keeps you alive.

How are we ever going to break the mould if we are stuck in our ways? What I am simply saying, erase the first aspect, in the above you stated. And do not let the third aspect be as important, what should be the most important decisive factor and determine the outcome of the battle, is the second statement of yours.

We have had healthbars and in-combat heals for the last 10 years in MMOs. One of the reasons I haven't wasted time more than trying the beta of each MMO that has been released until this very day.

Healthbar and heals, are immersion-killers, since it keeps the player's eyes whether they like it or not, watching the healthbar go up and down. It's the primary thing they keep track on in fights, their healthbar and their opponent's healthbar.

The alternative, is much more appealing, to me at least, where the primary thing is keeping your eyes on the opponent, reading his actions, reacting accordingly to avoid his attacks.

One of the major things that makes fight end faster is attacks that deal great amounts of damage.

Forget that ancient philosophy. It will not advance the genre any at all; it will just linger in the same trench.

The amount of damage is not what is really important, neither is health. If you look upon the game solely as skill based, where the players take an active role in their own survival, meaning having counter abilities/spells, then you put the time span of fights in the hands of the players' skills, not dependant on some META-game, since the most important thing is to avoid the attacks in the first place.

Say two equally advanced players as in character skills and equipment wise, can endure 3-4 hits from each other, then they are defeated. The outcome of the battle relies on their abilities to read and react to the opponent's actions. Naturally, a fight between these two equals, can last a very long time, until one of them have read their opponent wrong, and allowed 3-4 hits been struck on them.

As for bashing you, I am sorry if I did. Being a stereotypical MMOer is nothing bad, some are, and some are not and can think outside the MMO box. But discussing new features is one of the hardest things to do with MMOers, since their gaming experience is solely dependant on their past MMO experience, and what they have grown accustom to and grown to like. Sadly, they think some aspects should always be as normality in these games, how healing functions in combat is one of these.

In the first post in this thread, I asked you to keep in mind that MO is a different game, where the rules of AoC's, WoW's and other MMO games might no apply.

@Traceur, god damn, sorry to swear for the kids but that equation of combat longevity is amazing and thoroughly explained. +rep to Traceur. Trust me this isn't just some random rep bonus, but it can definitely help out a lot of game developers to use that formula. (Not saying it's final, since all formulas can be further upgraded).

That's why I said you "cried foul" a bit too soon, before you allowed the idea to grow on you. Same formula can be seen in the first post in this thread, basically in the first sentence; “If the basic premises for healing are to recover health to pro-long fights, then let health not be so easily reduced.” Which principally erase the need of heals in-combat.

And I am sorry I couldn't explain it simpler.

[Traceur]

one problem i see with the OP is with PvE. by making combat a lot more tactical, you need the AI the world supports to be able to do the same - while some creatures (such as dragons) could make sense with high health, what about NPC guards? what about the orcs hordes we heard about from the recent game convention? would the AI be able to handle the extra decision making?
- just a little bit of devil advocating to refine the idea.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Traceur

one problem i see with the OP is with PvE. by making combat a lot more tactical, you need the AI the world supports to be able to do the same - while some creatures (such as dragons) could make sense with high health, what about NPC guards? what about the orcs hordes we heard about from the recent game convention? would the AI be able to handle the extra decision making?
- just a little bit of devil advocating to refine the idea.

Just play Severance: Blade of Darkness. Programming the AI to block, dodge and parry, avoid attacks so to speak, does not seem too cumbersome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan...de_of_Darkness
Advanced AI System:
Different defensive tactics for enemies depending on their intelligence level (stupid and aggressive ork, organized and efficient Dark Knights).

There is a trial version out for that game, and you can also buy/stream it for a few bucks. Nonetheless, try that game, you vs 3-4 orcs. It's hard, but fun, takes a while until you get the hang of it.

Note: Can't believe it's been 7 years since they released this gem of a game.

[Rhygar]

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

So tell me this, you don't want healing during combat only after combat. How are we suppose to survive raid bosses etc for example? 3 hits and we are dead

Originally Posted by Rhygar

Raids? Where am I? Damn it did I go to the WoW forum again...

Originally Posted by dawnofdeath

Raids will be in MO as well, or did you plan to take on legendary beasts by yourself? good luck with that

Yes there will be once-off "monster" quests, which will hopefully require multiple steps and several days/weeks to complete. Probably involving various groups to compete against each other. The very fact they will be unique means they will have to take longer. I don't think we'll be seeing anything like weekly scheduled raids as in WoW of the same damn dungeon by everyone.

But my post was more about you assuming that the "boss" will have 100,000 hit points or something similarly wowish. You are making an assumption the combat would operate in exactly the same way.

Obviously if you change something as fundamental as healing it does not happen in isolation to everything else. So your post is somewhat disingenuous in order to discredit their idea.

[Victor]

Traceur,

Digged up an old youtube of Severence, since you didn't have time to try it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M--_gxoyo-4

Note here, the graphics are outdated (2001), but imagine something similar in FPV. Also instead of healing potions, healthbars as this game has, imagine the health being reduced, but after each encounter you could apply some basic bandages to your cuts and bruises.

Also note, when the AI attacks and you dodge out, it could strike another AI, very nice.

[Traceur]

it solved it? good. something so basic to work in 2001 should be wrokable on an MMO pipeline today i think.

i think you could argue for no instant-healing by defining the potential level of fun by player involvement:

we've determined that the 3 major factors of fight longevity:
- health: the amount of health - not interactive at all.
- healing: the affectiveness of healing spells per mana point & avalible mana.
- defense: the relativity between defensive actions and offensive actions.

now let's rate them by "fun", the level of player involvement:
3) health: no required action by the player.
2) healing: single-action, health/mana resource management.
1) defense: multiply action choices each involving a player skill, stamina/mana resource management, armor requiring trading and money accumilating skills,

we can't remove health completely, or one-hit deaths would make ambush and stealth attacks into the only viable tactics, melee combat won't have any chance against range, and their won't be much prolonged combat at all.

but what do instant-heals offer in the way of interactivity that defensive actions don't? nothing. they require less actions and choices from the player (single action), and assuming there's some sort of stamina and mana personal resources in the game, then then defensive actions already include resource management in them. there's no one chord of our brain stimulated by instant-healing which won't be stimulated otherwise.

what about group support? situational awareness, porpuseful locations and blocking each other means the game supports platoons, legions, guarila warfare, etc... their already is group support in the game. you could even have some sort of instant-stamina-healing (bards playing music etc) without a health bar at all.

and the healers role? if anything it could only benefit. without having to be instant in the middle of combat, the game can support mini-games such as analyzing the injury, managing the victims blood with bandages and timing and what should go first, taking out possible infections with ointments, rituals of recovering or re-attaching lost limbs (if such is in the game), herbal treatments for faster recovery, etc... all in all making healing more involving and interesting. this doesn't mean you can't do this in combat, but you'd be vulnerable while doing so and it will take time, so take cover.

medics? medics would be the ones who pull the wounded out of the battlefield. as far as support roles go, i think this would be a very fun game in itself. i would very much enjoy it myself if they make it like this. you'd need to manage tactical cover and ask your fellow players to cover for you a path to the medicine tent or patient wagon. in fact, this enables anyone to be a medic by holding on to their wounded friends and helping them out. some mounts might be trained to carry disabled characters and find the medicine tent on their own.


with all of those topics above.. what exactly do we loose from not having instant-healing?

one thing only: the feeling that you "almost got him" just before a player heals himself. guess what:if the game supports healing, that feeling is an illusion which only newbies will have for their first 40 minutes in the game before they discover the healing skills people use in combat. and that alone, simply isn't worth it.