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

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Doomtrain

With this post you just showed that you did read whole thread
Read it (skip flame wars, weel not all in some there is info mixt with flame :P) and post again.

can you blame him? it's hard to skip the flame wars since that seems to be pretty much 90% of this thread.. not to mention there's enough text in here to publish a short novel.

Here's the tl;dr version:
healing in current games is teh sux0rz, b/c it's stupid for people to get full heals right when you're about to kill them. not having healing, on the other hand, would suck because then people would die in like 4 hits and it would be lamez0rz. soo... the way you can eliminate the need for healing in combat without making it stupid (hence, the title of the thread) is to add in ways to prevent your health from going down to substitute for the fact that you can't make your health go up. ideas include (but are not limited to) advanced dodging and blocking, magical protective barrier type spells, illusionary spells to prevent enemies from attacking you.. etc, etc, etc.... mix in some flaming, spelling errors, and a hint of poor grammer and you've got yourself one long ass incoherent thread that perpetually gets worse by the posters who decide not to read it for very legitimate reasons....

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by fivetigers

I admit, I did not read the second page of the thread because I'm lazy. Vannndal basically had the same healing ideas as me, which just shows that great minds think alike. I did skim a lot because there was a ton of material, but I didn't see anyone else reply to Victor's 3 hits and you're dead which would completely nerf gear of any kind (i realize this isn't a gear based game but it will still have some impact), or the problem of not knowing if you're fit as a fiddle or at death's door by not having a health bar.

you OBVIOUSLY didn't read any of the thread at all... i don't know how you could have missed that, as those questions have pretty much been answered throughout the entire thread.

1) no 3 hit kills because there would be ways to mitigate damage or avoid damage completely. blocking, dodging, whatever see my above post.
2) no healthbars, but there would be other visual signals that you were near death. blurring/tunnel vision, slowed movement speed or staggered movement, and i know victor mentioned blood spatter on the screen about 13825 times, maybe more.

[Traceur]

look guys, when a discussion reaches that finale turning point of discussing the discussion itself, of "you didn't really read what i said" and so on, it's dead.

it doesn't mean the topic isn't valid, i still agree with the main idea btw, but fellow sandboxers, immersionists, WoW-paradigm breakers and unconventional conventionalists... it's this point where you turn and run away so you can fight another day.the topic will come up again, and you'll be surprised how much of a different turn out it will have. but for tonight, take a big breath, and relax. there's no amount of reasoning or peaceful discussion that can turn this thread around. go home to your kids which you got only on the weekend, go enjoy your time with your not-yet-x-wife or go out pubbing to find your future divorce. but leave this topic alone.

[Neverous]

i've read most of this thread and agree that taking insta-healz out would be a good route to go. and i think that health bars should be removed as well but maybe they should be replaced with a health indicator much like what you see in swat 4. you wouldnt know how much more damage you could take before you died or lost conscience but it could show you where you were hurt, like your leg has been seriously injured or maybe your arm. there should be other signs too i agree, like tunnel vision or your walk has slowed or if your arm is damaged then your aim would decrease. but you should still have a bodily damage indictor. in real life you are going to know if you have been stabbed in the leg or if your ribs have been broken. other people could always look at you and let you know what parts of your body appear injured, but you should be able to at least know yourself that you are damaged somewhere as well. you could have different color indicators as well, yellow for minor and red for serious and however many inbetweens you would want. it would also give you a chance to tell someone who is gifted with healing, whatever form that may take, that you need medical treatment for the damaged part of your body. they would then have to look at it and decide what to do with it

[Lachrymose]

Originally Posted by Neverous

in real life you are going to know if you have been stabbed in the leg or if your ribs have been broken. other people could always look at you and let you know what parts of your body appear injured, but you should be able to at least know yourself that you are damaged somewhere as well.

yea, this is the main reason i think healthbars are kinda necessary. sure, you can add other special effects and stuff, but in real life, if you get stabbed in the chest... you can feel it. you can't feel what happens to your character in the game, so one way you can tell the current state of your body is via through the healthbar. although, i definitely like some of the other indicators as well.

when i say healthbar, i don't necessarily want it to be a bar. it could be a figure of your body that indicates which area is damaged using color, just like you said. i'd prefer this over a healthbar, especially since we know there are hit boxes and i'd like hit boxes to be more than to just determine how much damage an attack does.

[Neverous]

yeah, i agree with you lachrymose. maybe if you had a system setup much like a blend of elder scrolls 4 oblivion attacking, which from what i have read on this sight sounds liek what they are planning on having, with the bodily damage indicator from swat 4. aiming for the head is going to be the quicker way to kill something, unless it is well protected or have a very thick skull, but aiming for the other parts will have other side effects that could prove strategical, like cutting their legs to slow them or cutting their arms to make their accuracy decrease, kinda like what i said before. you will never see numbers or anything like that to indicate how much damage you are doing. you can just see blood stains and such and notice them slowing and such. kinda like what some of the earlier suggestions stated. the bodily indicator can show you where they are hitting you at and you can adjust your defense to take this into account or maybe sacrifice that part of your body in order to keep other things protected. the bodily damge indicator i think should really be incorporated into the game to make it more immersive. sorry if this reply seems a little less than what the thread is about. he he

[Rhygar]

Originally Posted by Traceur

look guys, when a discussion reaches that finale turning point of discussing the discussion itself, of "you didn't really read what i said" and so on, it's dead.

it doesn't mean the topic isn't valid, i still agree with the main idea btw, but fellow sandboxers, immersionists, WoW-paradigm breakers and unconventional conventionalists... it's this point where you turn and run away so you can fight another day.the topic will come up again, and you'll be surprised how much of a different turn out it will have. but for tonight, take a big breath, and relax. there's no amount of reasoning or peaceful discussion that can turn this thread around. go home to your kids which you got only on the weekend, go enjoy your time with your not-yet-x-wife or go out pubbing to find your future divorce. but leave this topic alone.

If you talking about us two... then you are right. How does he do that?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Geoff

UMM have you read about MO there are classes in the game.
diffent skill sets make you be a diffent class moron.
they have classes in UO also its skill based.
"what class are you?" "Me oh I'm a warrior, I have macing and parrying."

just couse your a class don't mean you have to go talk to a NPC and "join" a class.

Please refrain from the name-calling. It's not nice, neither is it very constructive. Nonetheless, from what I have read concerning this game, it's a skill-based game, meaning you can train whatever, you can be a jack of all trades, or specialize in one field. As for classes, why have such restricted game-play? That's not a sandbox MMO, as Mortal Online has been advertised as.

Thank you for your reply though.

Originally Posted by Traceur

it just clicked... the conversation they had on irc about the topic:
Henrik, you got it wrong. you where right about the near-death/killing excitement in UO, but you wrong about the source - it wasn't because of the visible health bar - it was because of the invisible mana bar - you couldn't know if he'll have enough to heal himself or not! the excitement was because you never knew how close you where to beat him in the first place, he's "real health" (health + (healing skills * mana)) was invisible, and that's what caused the excited feeling you where talking about.

dude, you got the symptom right, but not the cause.

I would wager that the suggested game-play in this thread would be more exciting.

Simply because, you would never know if the next successful attack would bring you/your opponent down on your/his knees, defeated, and you would do you best to avoid getting hit in the first place, either by blocking, dodging, using the right defence spells or parrying your opponents incoming blows.

Originally Posted by fivetigers

"unrealistic fantasy" is an oxymoron. Victor, this is a fantasy game, not specifically a Lord of the Rings game. Healing can work anyway the devs want it to because it is a fantasy game, not a realistic game. Also you said there should be no health bars, just 3 hits and your dead... wtf is the point of armor? Some guy with a rusty dagger cant hit me 3 times while i've got full plate mail armor on and I'm dead? Or I have a giant two handed battle axe and I hit some naked guy as hard as I can right in the head but I have to hit him 2 more times just for the hell of it? Also, healing post battle is compete roleplaying. In real life, yes most healing occurs after battle. In this game, after the fight is won, there probably wont be a real need for healing because I'm guessing health regenerates over time. You kept mentioning the game being unrealistic, well if I hurt my arm today, tomorrow its probably going to feel better, hence natural healing over time is realistic. Also, you said no health bars because you can look at your opponent and see what condition they are in... how do you tell what condition YOU are in when you can't see yourself or some type of health bar? The only viable option I can think of immediately off the top of my head is to make healing less effective, but not to the point where it is useless. For instance, healing spells cant heal more than 30-50% of a characters life and they have a significant cool down and/or a longish casting time. Also, ranged healing spells could be weaker than touch ones, that way if the mage doesnt want to risk his neck, he's not going to be able to heal as well. Anyway, just my two cents.

What a wall of text reply... thanks for that, but I believe you misunderstood a few things, perhaps if it isn’t too much to ask for, you could reconsider reading the discussion going on here again? Skip the flames I would suggest.

Originally Posted by fivetigers

I admit, I did not read the second page of the thread because I'm lazy. Vannndal basically had the same healing ideas as me, which just shows that great minds think alike. I did skim a lot because there was a ton of material, but I didn't see anyone else reply to Victor's 3 hits and you're dead which would completely nerf gear of any kind (i realize this isn't a gear based game but it will still have some impact), or the problem of not knowing if you're fit as a fiddle or at death's door by not having a health bar.

Let me quote what I said concerning the 3 hits and you are defeated, one of the things you got wrong, in that wall of text reply. Note: Perhaps you could use paragraphs in your future posts to make it easier for your readers.

I said: "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."

Originally Posted by Traceur

look guys, when a discussion reaches that finale turning point of discussing the discussion itself, of "you didn't really read what i said" and so on, it's dead.

it doesn't mean the topic isn't valid, i still agree with the main idea btw, but fellow sandboxers, immersionists, WoW-paradigm breakers and unconventional conventionalists... it's this point where you turn and run away so you can fight another day.the topic will come up again, and you'll be surprised how much of a different turn out it will have. but for tonight, take a big breath, and relax. there's no amount of reasoning or peaceful discussion that can turn this thread around. go home to your kids which you got only on the weekend, go enjoy your time with your not-yet-x-wife or go out pubbing to find your future divorce. but leave this topic alone.

Maybe we should co-write a piece concerning this, and post it as a new thread, write it so it's easy to understand. I see a lot of hate and not so constructive posts in this thread, simply because they have not understood it correctly.

[Vanndal]

@Victor since you're so pent up in believing removing healing from combat will indeed do what you think it would do but would not open your mind to see how it could be bad, then let us all look into multitude of possibilities of how removing healing from combat would break the game.

Because of your failure to try to answer my questions on how the bad things in your system could be fixed.

Also at the statement about "some time" it is highly important that you answer that statement instead of going off on some tangent of removing healing from combat and refusing to answer that question.

-----
Situation 1:

1. For sake of simplicity, 2 Groups are doing battle with each other.
2. Both have a position of defense and offense.
3. Offensive Position is a good distant away from the Defensive Position that would require say... a good 10 second run.

On the Defensive Position, archers and mages are stationed for long ranged assault along with medics that can only heal out of combat. If you argue that there is a maximum range distance to weapons, then let me ask you have you seen in real life a arrow magically disappear in midflight or suddenly going into free fall while in an arc? If the duration to heal a person out of combat to full health requires 10 seconds to do so. Then here is the situation of how combat will turn into for Mortal Online.

Yes, Range will stay range and not try to get close, melee will refuse to move up, because that's the general mentality of combat when zergs are fighting zergs.

When an enemy approaches the group, the range will start firing off on the advancing force, while the melee will get ready to zerg and kill the advancing force. If both forces are equal in number and skill, typically the advancing force has a disadvantage since the defending force starts their attack earlier then the advancing force. However, lets put out of combat healing into play. People will be more afraid of dying in such a large force strife, and WILL retreat the moment they are below half health. Why? Because there is a harsh penalty for dying in Mortal Online, do I need to say more as to why anyone would run away from combat when they know they will die if they know that it's now or never. Thus the advancing force will wane, while the retreating forces are going back to their defensive position that presumably moved up a little to reinforce their advancing force, and seek aid from the out of combat healers. The defending force simply has to take a few steps back since they are already standing in their defensive position, to get aid from their out of combat healers.

Also keep in mind, we are not all trying to RP while playing this game, because when this game goes live, players of all age group will step forward, and a lot of power gamers will come to join the game just to increase their ego. Though we hate them, they are the ones that will abuse bugs and the system to maximize their efficiency both in combat and out of combat so that they will get an edge over all other players. They are the ones who will lay out the game's combat strategies even when the developers thought differently when they created the game.

The more veteran players, and possible ex-military leaders (I mean in real life), will realize that you need to use rotation methods in combat to utilize your system completely. Simply put, Advancing forces will now have 3 teams, Team 1 goes in as the vanguard, Once the forces starts waning, Team 2 goes in, and onces those wanes, Team 1 should be getting healed back at defensive position, and Team 3 goes in. Once Team 3 wanes, Team 1 will re-enter the fray, and if they manage to beat the defender (which is highly unlikely if numbers and skills were equal). What I just said, is also a "on paper" beauty. Why? How organize can players in a game? How many players will need to be on a single server for this strategy to work? Hell how many players will need to be participating in that battle to make it work? If you can answer those questions, correctly and not dreamily then you'll know that strategy will not work in game.


-----
Situation 2:

Now for the type of combat you had envisioned for this game with your examples given Victor.

1. Your forces and enemy forces have 2 position you want to capture. The positions will be dubbed, Position I and Position II for this case.
2. You divided your Forces into Group A and Group B, while they divided their forces to Group 1 and Group 2.
3. Both teams have equal on both sides have equal numbers and skill.

Important Note: Yes, players have differen skill levels. However if you want to bring that equation to these situations, it could easily be reversed with, their teams are all pros and your team is all noobs, and then the situation fails to begin with, since you are guaranteed to lose.

Many different outcomes may occur from this equation. However I'll use a specific one that particularly shows how "just out of combat healing, and no in combat healing" would be bad. Then explain how different outcomes of the same situation may result.

Group A and Group 1 attacks Position I, while Group B and Group 2 Attacks Position II.

Between Position I and Position II there is a good 55 seconds run.

The battle goes on and Group A defeats Group 1 in combat, while Group B and Group 2 are still in combat. Once Group A fully heals out of combat, (say 2 minutes), they quickly come to the aid of Group B, however during that 55 second, Group 2 and Group B have severely damaged both sides and both sides are about to collapse. Just then Group A charges in with soldiers who are fully healed, and "some died, but ressurrected" and reinforces Group B and slaughters Group 2.

Group 2 is now mad that there is only such a thing as out of combat healing, and wishes to completely do away with healing, since it causes these types of battle to occur. They argue that healing in general is non-realistic and they should completely do away with it. They believe that it should follow realistic rules of healing, where everyone needs to recuperate after combat, for a long duration, (since time may be sped up in game as oppose to real life) 35 minutes. Which means down time after combat will effectively be increased to half an hour depending on how catastrophic the battle was. Minimum down time is 3 minutes on average for after combat.

If Group A and Group 1 fought to a stand still while Group B and Group 2 did so too, then the situation could be avoided, but there are no wars where there are no winners even if the victory could be bitter.

If Group A arrives while Group 2 were healing their wounded, Group A wins.

If Group A arrives to fight against a fully healed Group 2, then it's just another battle with a tedious down time after the battle.

If there is a respawn zone close enough to combat, then the game will just turn into a zerg fest, and both in combat and out of combat healing would be irrelevant, with the exception of losing all your gears after combat. Players will constantly run to the battlefield and loot the first person that seem to have the gears they need and run back into the fray.

Most MMORPG, especially in WoW, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Ragnarok Online, Lineage, Lineage 2, Everquest, Everquest 2, etc. do have a amazing display of healers running around trying to revive and heal everyone back to health after combat. If you want to expand the duration of down time after combat, then by all means go ahead. I'm sure more players want to constantly be in action then waiting to be healed, or applying a bandage that magically heals your wounds.

-----

If out of combat healing is too short, people will complain, and if it is too long people will also complain. So what is a good "some time"? Answer this question and don't avoid it.

However if healing is possible to be done out of combat but not in combat, do you not see the inconsistency of this in terms of gameplay, lore, history, or realism?

More situations to come. As for in combat healing posibilities, we all know them since we see them in almost every mmorpg in existent.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

@Victor since you're so pent up in believing removing healing from combat will indeed do what you think it would do but would not open your mind to see how it could be bad, then let us all look into multitude of possibilities of how removing healing from combat would break the game.

Because of your failure to try to answer my questions on how the bad things in your system could be fixed.

Also at the statement about "some time" it is highly important that you answer that statement instead of going off on some tangent of removing healing from combat and refusing to answer that question.

I did, I said, it needs to be tested.

-----
Situation 1:

1. For sake of simplicity, 2 Groups are doing battle with each other.
2. Both have a position of defense and offense.
3. Offensive Position is a good distant away from the Defensive Position that would require say... a good 10 second run.

On the Defensive Position, archers and mages are stationed for long ranged assault along with medics that can only heal out of combat. If you argue that there is a maximum range distance to weapons, then let me ask you have you seen in real life a arrow magically disappear in midflight or suddenly going into free fall while in an arc? If the duration to heal a person out of combat to full health requires 10 seconds to do so. Then here is the situation of how combat will turn into for Mortal Online.

Yes, Range will stay range and not try to get close, melee will refuse to move up, because that's the general mentality of combat when zergs are fighting zergs.

When an enemy approaches the group, the range will start firing off on the advancing force, while the melee will get ready to zerg and kill the advancing force. If both forces are equal in number and skill, typically the advancing force has a disadvantage since the defending force starts their attack earlier then the advancing force. However, lets put out of combat healing into play. People will be more afraid of dying in such a large force strife, and WILL retreat the moment they are below half health. Why? Because there is a harsh penalty for dying in Mortal Online, do I need to say more as to why anyone would run away from combat when they know they will die if they know that it's now or never. Thus the advancing force will wane, while the retreating forces are going back to their defensive position that presumably moved up a little to reinforce their advancing force, and seek aid from the out of combat healers. The defending force simply has to take a few steps back since they are already standing in their defensive position, to get aid from their out of combat healers.

Also keep in mind, we are not all trying to RP while playing this game, because when this game goes live, players of all age group will step forward, and a lot of power gamers will come to join the game just to increase their ego. Though we hate them, they are the ones that will abuse bugs and the system to maximize their efficiency both in combat and out of combat so that they will get an edge over all other players. They are the ones who will lay out the game's combat strategies even when the developers thought differently when they created the game.

The more veteran players, and possible ex-military leaders (I mean in real life), will realize that you need to use rotation methods in combat to utilize your system completely. Simply put, Advancing forces will now have 3 teams, Team 1 goes in as the vanguard, Once the forces starts waning, Team 2 goes in, and onces those wanes, Team 1 should be getting healed back at defensive position, and Team 3 goes in. Once Team 3 wanes, Team 1 will re-enter the fray, and if they manage to beat the defender (which is highly unlikely if numbers and skills were equal). What I just said, is also a "on paper" beauty. Why? How organize can players in a game? How many players will need to be on a single server for this strategy to work? Hell how many players will need to be participating in that battle to make it work? If you can answer those questions, correctly and not dreamily then you'll know that strategy will not work in game.

Once again, you take it to the extremes.

Group 1 attacks Group 2. Group 1 advance having their melee units block incoming frontal projectiles with their shields, mages would cast defensive magic on themselves, slowly advance, rangers would dodge incoming projectiles, or maybe even they would use shields to block incoming frontal projectiles. They would advance and attack with ranged when chances are given, warriors throwing throwing spears, rangers firing their bows, mages casting their ranged spells in cover of the players’ with shields. Successful blocks, means = zero damage. Naturally, it would be easy to advance against frontal projectiles, hence why the shield was commonly used in ancient warfare.

Once in-range, charge, close-combat and mayhem...

Current MMO game-play:
Warriors run forward acting like dartboards unable to block incoming frontal projectiles, healers in back cast heals, heals, and heals.

-----
Situation 2:

Now for the type of combat you had envisioned for this game with your examples given Victor.

1. Your forces and enemy forces have 2 position you want to capture. The positions will be dubbed, Position I and Position II for this case.
2. You divided your Forces into Group A and Group B, while they divided their forces to Group 1 and Group 2.
3. Both teams have equal on both sides have equal numbers and skill.

Important Note: Yes, players have differen skill levels. However if you want to bring that equation to these situations, it could easily be reversed with, their teams are all pros and your team is all noobs, and then the situation fails to begin with, since you are guaranteed to lose.

Many different outcomes may occur from this equation. However I'll use a specific one that particularly shows how "just out of combat healing, and no in combat healing" would be bad. Then explain how different outcomes of the same situation may result.

Group A and Group 1 attacks Position I, while Group B and Group 2 Attacks Position II.

Between Position I and Position II there is a good 55 seconds run.

The battle goes on and Group A defeats Group 1 in combat, while Group B and Group 2 are still in combat. Once Group A fully heals out of combat, (say 2 minutes), they quickly come to the aid of Group B, however during that 55 second, Group 2 and Group B have severely damaged both sides and both sides are about to collapse. Just then Group A charges in with soldiers who are fully healed, and "some died, but ressurrected" and reinforces Group B and slaughters Group 2.

What is wrong with this happening? I would wager though, that patching up minor wounds/ resurrecting/attending your gear (field repairing), execute Group 1’s defeated players, loot the corpses, would take a bit more than 2 minutes. As I stated, the post-battle needs to be tested, how long it should take, doing these mini-games, as in patching up your friend, resurrecting your friend, doing field repair on your damaged gear, finding valuable loot etc needs to be tested...

Current MMO game-play:
Group A defeats group 1 in combat, instantly healed and fresh, runs straight over and pawns group 2.

Group 2 is now mad that there is only such a thing as out of combat healing, and wishes to completely do away with healing, since it causes these types of battle to occur. They argue that healing in general is non-realistic and they should completely do away with it. They believe that it should follow realistic rules of healing, where everyone needs to recuperate after combat, for a long duration, (since time may be sped up in game as oppose to real life) 35 minutes. Which means down time after combat will effectively be increased to half an hour depending on how catastrophic the battle was. Minimum down time is 3 minutes on average for after combat.

Why would they be mad? In current MMOs as I stated above, it’s even worse. At least they have a chance here, to retreat, once they see the approaching reinforcement, or once they know their other group has been defeated.

If Group A and Group 1 fought to a stand still while Group B and Group 2 did so too, then the situation could be avoided, but there are no wars where there are no winners even if the victory could be bitter.

Why should this scenario be avoided? It’s perfectly legitimated in wars.

If Group A arrives while Group 2 were healing their wounded, Group A wins.

Why is that so? They would still be recovering from their own wounds.

If Group A arrives to fight against a fully healed Group 2, then it's just another battle with a tedious down time after the battle.

Don’t need to be tedious at all. It can be fun too, applying bandages on minor wounds, resurrecting a friend, repairing your gears, loot the corpses, execute the defeated players etc.

Sounds like fun down time to me, walking around the battle-field, while it looks like a battle-field.

If there is a respawn zone close enough to combat, then the game will just turn into a zerg fest, and both in combat and out of combat healing would be irrelevant, with the exception of losing all your gears after combat. Players will constantly run to the battlefield and loot the first person that seem to have the gears they need and run back into the fray.

It happens. But this is not a discussion about respawn zones (resurrection shrines).

Most MMORPG, especially in WoW, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Ragnarok Online, Lineage, Lineage 2, Everquest, Everquest 2, etc. do have a amazing display of healers running around trying to revive and heal everyone back to health after combat. If you want to expand the duration of down time after combat, then by all means go ahead. I'm sure more players want to constantly be in action then waiting to be healed, or applying a bandage that magically heals your wounds.

I don’t want to expand the duration of down-time. I want to put the duration in the hands of the players’ gaming skills.

These games you mentioned above, you can die and be resurrected with your gear. Just because you have grown accustom to that pointless PvP in these games, doesn’t make it right or more fun. Naturally someone, that has been defeated, has been defeated, why should he be able to fight the same opponents right away with little or no down time at all?

As I said, earlier, it’s hard to convince someone that thinks game-play such as you advocate for, is and should be the normality in these games. What you basically state, they did it like this in these other MMO games, and this is how it should be in this game.

-----

If out of combat healing is too short, people will complain, and if it is too long people will also complain. So what is a good "some time"? Answer this question and don't avoid it.

It has to be tested, as I mentioned earlier. Naturally, applying some basic bandages on your minor cuts and bruises, would be quicker than treating a severe wound on a friend. And naturally, you would regain your strength faster if it was just minor cuts and bruises you sustained during the battle, than say, if you are recovering from a severe injury.

And yet again, with Strength, I mean, a player would recover his HP and stats, his debuffs would wear off, and he would become his pristine self again.

However if healing is possible to be done out of combat but not in combat, do you not see the inconsistency of this in terms of gameplay, lore, history, or realism?

No I don’t. Since the notion of healing someone that is in full swing with battling another is folly. Where is the logic? Should I apply some bandages on his minor cuts and bruises, while he swings at his opponent? Because he surely can’t be injured since he is fighting for god’s sake, thus not in need of my miraculous magical cures!

Standing up = still fighting
On the ground = That’s severe! He needs help!

More situations to come. As for in combat healing posibilities, we all know them since we see them in almost every mmorpg in existent.

Sure, come up with a few more scenarios; let us compare the suggested game-play vs generic MMO game-play.

I am positively sure; that the suggested game-play will in the end convince you.

EDIT: Please keep the scenarios short, so they are easy to reply too. Skip the fluff, be precise.

[Lachrymose]

sweet baby jesus..... can we plz just let this thread die peacefully? i don't even know how you two have any spit left after all of that drivel..

ps: there's absolutely NO way i'm reading any of that monstrosity that you call a post

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Lachrymose

sweet baby jesus..... can we plz just let this thread die peacefully? i don't even know how you two have any spit left after all of that drivel..

ps: there's absolutely NO way i'm reading any of that monstrosity that you call a post

Yeah, I feel like a broken record, repeating the suggested game-play over and over again, in hopes they can share the same vision I have concerning it.

[Vanndal]

@Lachrymose
On the contrary, I'm not arguing over this for the fact that a debate is best when a debate is in motion . However debates are crappy when neither side puts up reasonable arguments, it's almost like watching two guys yelling at each other with one saying A is better then B and the other vice versa.

@Victor
I'm not advocating anything, in vice versa you are not advocating your own idea very well, I'm simply asking questions about your system and providing situations where your idea can be bad, and by far am I not providing extreme circumstances at any case, since developers will have to deal with these issues sooner or later. Therefore instead of just throwing out an idea with limited insight, how about we delve deeper into it, and hammer out all the cracks as best as we can so that when and if the devs decide to use this system they would have as much of it down as possible.

I believe that is what we are here for aren't we?

To get our ideas presented to the developers as best as we can so that they would understand our idea and how well thought out the ideas are, and at the same time possibly implemented into the game unless multiple ideas are conflicting against each other immensely.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

@Lachrymose
On the contrary, I'm not arguing over this for the fact that a debate is best when a debate is in motion . However debates are crappy when neither side puts up reasonable arguments, it's almost like watching two guys yelling at each other with one saying A is better then B and the other vice versa.

@Victor
For the situation of the stand still battle, you misinterpreted the sentence. It simply means that if the battle fought to a stand still for both group A and B and 1 and 2, then the situation of out of combat healing is completely avoided.

So? What's your argument? If the battle continues, eventually someone will win, unless they both pull back.

My point was, why should such a scenario be avoided in the first place?

As well as the timer required for out of combat healing to even make sense both effectively, is why I asked you what the "sometime" is and why it is vital to your argument.

It's not vital... why would it be?

However, it depends entirely how they make it work in the game. If they do as some suggested, that you have to examine a severe wound, apply the right remedy, there could be required some time to just examine the wound, then some time to apply the remedy. Once the remedy is applied, it would require some time before the wound is healed, a regeneration mechanic on the wounded player so to speak.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Vanndal

@Lachrymose
On the contrary, I'm not arguing over this for the fact that a debate is best when a debate is in motion . However debates are crappy when neither side puts up reasonable arguments, it's almost like watching two guys yelling at each other with one saying A is better then B and the other vice versa.

@Victor
I'm not advocating anything, in vice versa you are not advocating your own idea very well, I'm simply asking questions about your system and providing situations where your idea can be bad, and by far am I not providing extreme circumstances at any case, since developers will have to deal with these issues sooner or later. Therefore instead of just throwing out an idea with limited insight, how about we delve deeper into it, and hammer out all the cracks as best as we can so that when and if the devs decide to use this system they would have as much of it down as possible.

I believe that is what we are here for aren't we?

To get our ideas presented to the developers as best as we can so that they would understand our idea and how well thought out the ideas are, and at the same time possibly implemented into the game unless multiple ideas are conflicting against each other immensely.

Asking questions is all fine and dandy. Go ahead.

[Vanndal]

Group 1 attacks Group 2. Group 1 advance having their melee units block incoming frontal projectiles with their shields, mages would cast defensive magic on themselves, slowly advance, rangers would dodge incoming projectiles, or maybe even they would use shields to block incoming frontal projectiles. They would advance and attack with ranged when chances are given, warriors throwing throwing spears, rangers firing their bows, mages casting their ranged spells in cover of the players’ with shields. Successful blocks, means = zero damage. Naturally, it would be easy to advance against frontal projectiles, hence why the shield was commonly used in ancient warfare.

Once in-range, charge, close-combat and mayhem...

Yes... that sounds good on paper, but are you invincible while utilizing these defensive abilities? How will gear durability come into play? You can't dodge what you can't dodge, such as an arrow rain, but you can possibly put up a shield wall, but if a shield breaks because of durability, then you will get hammered by arrows.

Current MMO game-play:
Warriors run forward acting like dartboards unable to block incoming frontal projectiles, healers in back cast heals, heals, and heals.

That is a false notion, that healers are not required even if the warriors CAN block incoming frontal attacks. It also does not prove why healing is not required in combat even if they can block incoming frontal attacks.

What is wrong with this happening? I would wager though, that patching up minor wounds/ resurrecting/attending your gear (field repairing), execute Group 1’s defeated players, loot the corpses, would take a bit more than 2 minutes. As I stated, the post-battle needs to be tested, how long it should take, doing these mini-games, as in patching up your friend, resurrecting your friend, doing field repair on your damaged gear, finding valuable loot etc needs to be tested...

The whole point of this situation is to try to provide both a solid argument for you and why out of combat healing could be broken. You have stated that it does needs to be tested, however we could deal with as much as possible pre-testing. Therefore we have an as much controlled situation as possible when we do do testings, so that some random variable that we forgot may not suddenly require us to change the game world into something unreasonable.

Current MMO game-play:
Group A defeats group 1 in combat, instantly healed and fresh, runs straight over and pawns group 2.

I'm not saying this isn't the case, but however I do add that if this were to occur Group 2 could had stood a chance if they were to stay alive long enough for Group 1 to return to reinforce them, or retrieve Position 1.

Why would they be mad? In current MMOs as I stated above, it’s even worse. At least they have a chance here, to retreat, once they see the approaching reinforcement, or once they know their other group has been defeated.

Why would they not be mad? In both cases you have a crowd to please, however the strategies are a lot different for both situation. However if only out of combat healing existed, how would it work since the devs already stated that there is no such thing as "in combat" and "out of combat" it's just wether or not you're engaged directly.

Why should this scenario be avoided? It’s perfectly legitimated in wars.

You misunderstand, it simply means you completely avoid either the reason to remove healing from combat or any complications that could occur because of "only" out of combat healing.

Why is that so? They would still be recovering from their own wounds.

Because that is another situation that will be the same either way if there was in combat healing or not.

Don’t need to be tedious at all. It can be fun too, applying bandages on minor wounds, resurrecting a friend, repairing your gears, loot the corpses, execute the defeated players etc.

If you thought spamming hotkeys were tedious, then any action in repetition is also tedious. Also how on earth do you ressurrect a friend with your system of healing? You sew them back up, and cast a spell? What happen if you didn't sow their organs in the right place? They come back and die again? Then you need to hack them up and do it all over again? That is also why I stated that you can't expect everyone to have a medical degree when playing a video game.

Sounds like fun down time to me, walking around the battle-field, while it looks like a battle-field.

I couldn't more agree with this . It's always fun to see all the corpses all over the place, and how many opponents you have defeated and survived the battle, but don't you think this is already in place in all mmorpgs around the world?

It happens. But this is not a discussion about respawn zones (resurrection shrines).

I agree, thats why I did not elaborate into this subject matter.

I don’t want to expand the duration of down-time. I want to put the duration in the hands of the players’ gaming skills.

So if your hamstring were cut during combat, it would persist permanently until you recieve aid? Also if you recieve inadequate aid, you'll have your hamstring permanently cut until you do recieve the adequate aid?

These games you mentioned above, you can die and be resurrected with your gear. Just because you have grown accustom to that pointless PvP in these games, doesn’t make it right or more fun. Naturally someone, that has been defeated, has been defeated, why should he be able to fight the same opponents right away with little or no down time at all?

On the contrary, I have to an understanding to more then just this form of game play, since I've played Dark age of Camelot as well. I am not accustomed, but understand why certain things are in place.

As I said, earlier, it’s hard to convince someone that thinks game-play such as you advocate for, is and should be the normality in these games. What you basically state, they did it like this in these other MMO games, and this is how it should be in this game.

Actually funny thing is, I'm not advocating anything, but on the contrast you are, I'm simply saying how your system is flawed and asking how it can be improved upon, but you just simply assume things about me.