PDA

View Full Version : Water as health system



Sushiglutton
07-31-2016, 10:32 AM
No secret that I'm a massive PoP: SoT fan :D! I'm currently playing Mad Max and was reminded of the water based health system that originated in PoP (I think). It sooo good. Now with AC returning to the desert I really hope the devs adopt it.

Why is it so great you ask? Because it turns water into a sought after resource which makes you feel like you are in a hot enviroment. You can't wait until you get to the next water, as it should be! It also leads to health refilling with vastly different looks, that still feel totally organic. A well, a stream, a fountain etc. In Mad Max you can carry a water canister which gives you a portable healing item. You can choose to give water to people dying of thirst in the wasteland again a really nice touch.


Anyhow now I feel a bit thirsty. What do ya all think, time to dig up that old PoP silver stream?

Ureh
07-31-2016, 01:03 PM
Sounds like a fine idea. They could even include an option for us to poison water sources... make all the enemy camels/horses sick. Or make some of the guards sick.

I haven't played Mad Max or any survival game really (closest would be New Vegas but I never really felt like sleep, hunger, thirst was an issue on the console version). Also this might sound a bit confusing but I'm curious about how water will be integrated into a desert. We know there are wells, rivers, oases, possibly merchants, etc. But what I'm wondering is how do they place them far enough that water will feel like an actual resource for survival, you know? If they put a bunch of sources too close together then it's basically just free medicine all over the place, but if the water is too split apart then it might be like Fallout 4's survival mode where we have to play with a bed in mind (ie constantly worrying that we might die before we find a bed to save the game).

Eventually this kind of survival system might feel a bit like a hassle to some players especially on subsequent playthrus or when you're revisiting/retreading certain locations (whether it's because you're forced to restart at a checkpoint, or you're looking for collectibles, etc).

I do like the possibilities that it can bring... such as the example you mentioned (giving water to a person dying of thirst). They could take that further so that we can rescue a dying animal, eventually it will grow accustomed to us and become our loyal companion. Maybe we happen upon a fruit tree in the desert and nourish it with water until it blossoms. Maybe we can store some h2o on our camel (an maybe inside it as well).

Helforsite
07-31-2016, 01:55 PM
All the ideas of sidecontent related to this mechanic sound amazinhg, but I usually dont enjoy such survival mechanics, because usually they end up getting in the way of exploring properly and are more of an annoyance than anything else.

D.I.D.
07-31-2016, 03:54 PM
I think it would be great for the setting. I hate hunger/sleep features in games (makes me feel like I'm in charge of a tamagotchi), but I do like non-regenerating health.

Sushiglutton
07-31-2016, 04:01 PM
I should have pointed out it's not really a survival feature, more like a cosmetic thing (think of how it works in Sand of Time). I fully agree with you guys that for example slowly draining health due to thrst would be awful.

Ureh: it's pretty good so far. Should not be thought of like a survival game really. It's very similar to Ubisoft games like FarCry (it has baloons instead of towers, and strongholds to take over etc).

D.I.D.
07-31-2016, 04:19 PM
Yeah, I got you. It has to be for health only, not something that drains, and as a SoT fan too I got what you meant!

It's good for your sense of story, I think. You'd have situations where conflict had gone wrong, and left you in poor health and with your bottle supply drained. You would then be creeping around, having to weight up the benefits of reaching the water well against the dangers of the nearby enemies you'd need to evade to get there. Would be good!

SixKeys
08-01-2016, 07:58 PM
I like this idea. Not so much the portable water bottle because that's just medicine, too easy. I like the idea of having to explore and find different water sources. If there were multiple bureaus around the city, each one of those could have a little fountain. I always loved how AC1 bureaus felt like little pocket oases in the midst of danger.

Definitely only for replenishing non-regenerating health, though. Not the survival kind where your meter drains constantly.

Ureh
08-01-2016, 09:08 PM
I like this idea. Not so much the portable water bottle because that's just medicine, too easy. I like the idea of having to explore and find different water sources. If there were multiple bureaus around the city, each one of those could have a little fountain. I always loved how AC1 bureaus felt like little pocket oases in the midst of danger.

Definitely only for replenishing non-regenerating health, though. Not the survival kind where your meter drains constantly.

Yeah that's one of the things I worry about. It does depend on player skill and playstyle (a person good at combat might rarely have to heal, a person that relies entirely on stealth might never have to heal, etc). For people that want/need to heal they will have to keep going back to a water source. They can put multiple sources in strategic locations which could lead to a more challenging experience (and possibly make more players lean towards stealth) if some of the sources are guarded or require some freerunning to reach. I think the downside is that it could force players to have to return to a water source which kinda negates the freedom of exploration. You know what I mean? Portable medicine from past games is indeed overpowered and easy way out, but it is also a welcome convenience to not constantly going back to the doctor, merchant, looting bodies, or in the case of a partially-arid region: a water source. Another downside is if they put too many convenient water sources, then we'll have heals for days. Some players'll be like.. "why the heck is there so much conveniently placed water sources in places where it might not make sense?!".

I do think if they go down this route, they would need to include a bottle (no overpowered capacity). If we were to go deeper into the desert or inside a tomb, there might not be water in those places in certain situations. Bottle also offers the player the option to drink from a reliable, trustworthy source instead of having to drink from a palace fountain during an infiltration mission. I like the idea of an assassin pulling out a water sac while crouching on top of a beam, instead of always relying on water sources in the environment, on the ground, etc.

It kinda reminds me of the oil lamp in Dead Kings. It's running out of oil, but no fear right? There's a convenient oil urn refill right there. But then now the player is reminded that they have to refill oil everytime the lantern runs out, which wasn't a problem in Dead Kings because we don't use the lantern too much. However, the water which will serve as medicine will be used much more frequently cause it's pretty crucial, especially if combat is challenging next time. That's probably why they added the Lantern of St. Denis for infinite light cause at a certain point dipping the normal lantern could get.... uh, repetitive (best word I could think of)?

That's kinda how I see it for now, if it makes any sense.

Ubi-Banshee
08-01-2016, 09:14 PM
Ohh this is a cool idea! I like the idea of the water being a valuable resource and even used as a currency in some areas like Mad Max.

cawatrooper9
08-01-2016, 09:55 PM
Oh yeah, Mad Max has a ton of features that Ubi should look to, particularly if Egypt is really the next game. I think Mad Max did a really good job of creating a large and empty seeming desert, while still preventing it from being boring. Seriously, though, the game is huge!

I totally agree that water would really add to the atmosphere of the game. It definitely did in Max. Regarding implementation- in Mad Max, water was typically gathered at spigots. They could be located in bases, enemy camps, and sometimes even just randomly in small shelters in the wilderness. Unless Egypt is far more modern than we're expecting that probably would't exactly work- but wells could still be used, right?

SixKeys
08-01-2016, 10:40 PM
I do think if they go down this route, they would need to include a bottle (no overpowered capacity). If we were to go deeper into the desert or inside a tomb, there might not be water in those places in certain situations. Bottle also offers the player the option to drink from a reliable, trustworthy source instead of having to drink from a palace fountain during an infiltration mission. I like the idea of an assassin pulling out a water sac while crouching on top of a beam, instead of always relying on water sources in the environment, on the ground, etc.

Hmm, I can imagine a portable water bottle working if it's introduced in the later stages of the game. Like an upgrade, basically. While the player is still in the city, it makes sense they wouldn't have need to carry a bottle around because there will always be water sources, but then in the third act they have to venture into the desert for story reasons (to locate a First Civ temple or something) and they can't make that journey without a portable water source. When you give the player the upgrade, you can still balance it by making them have to refill it where they can. So the bottle will make their health stretch longer but not forever. They would still need to find oases here and there, or maybe trade with nomads, or maybe there's a ritual fountain or an old well inside the temple. You would only get a precious few refill spots in that late half so you shouldn't be reckless with your health and wouldn't be overpowered.

cawatrooper9
08-01-2016, 10:55 PM
Hmm, I can imagine a portable water bottle working if it's introduced in the later stages of the game. Like an upgrade, basically. While the player is still in the city, it makes sense they wouldn't have need to carry a bottle around because there will always be water sources, but then in the third act they have to venture into the desert for story reasons (to locate a First Civ temple or something) and they can't make that journey without a portable water source. When you give the player the upgrade, you can still balance it by making them have to refill it where they can. So the bottle will make their health stretch longer but not forever. They would still need to find oases here and there, or maybe trade with nomads, or maybe there's a ritual fountain or an old well inside the temple. You would only get a precious few refill spots in that late half so you shouldn't be reckless with your health and wouldn't be overpowered.

I like that model, and it makes sense both thematically and from a design perspective. Of course the water would be more of a precious commodity in the desert as opposed to the city- you know, because of that whole thing about being in the freakin desert.

And late in the game, we probably should see a little bit of an increase in difficulty. It might seem a little "survivor horror-y", but I think this is one way it can be done.

RobertMcSassin
08-02-2016, 03:20 PM
Sounds cool...

Though not sure about drinking water from a camel...Personally speaking, like... :o ...

Perhaps the spread out water sources/oases could be like the Borgia Tower/Byzantine Den thing...You fight to claim it as your own, and then you have to periodically fight to keep it yours like in Revelations...

Sushiglutton
08-02-2016, 05:45 PM
I like this idea. Not so much the portable water bottle because that's just medicine, too easy. I like the idea of having to explore and find different water sources. If there were multiple bureaus around the city, each one of those could have a little fountain. I always loved how AC1 bureaus felt like little pocket oases in the midst of danger.

Definitely only for replenishing non-regenerating health, though. Not the survival kind where your meter drains constantly.

It's not necessarily easier, it depends on how easy it is to find refills. If you are in an enemy camp with no water sources it's effectively just an extension of the health meter and enemies can be scaled reltive to that. Problem with the medecine is that you had like what 15 bottles or something? Balanced correctly it can actually add a tad bit more strategy to the game.



Yeah that's one of the things I worry about. It does depend on player skill and playstyle (a person good at combat might rarely have to heal, a person that relies entirely on stealth might never have to heal, etc). For people that want/need to heal they will have to keep going back to a water source. They can put multiple sources in strategic locations which could lead to a more challenging experience (and possibly make more players lean towards stealth) if some of the sources are guarded or require some freerunning to reach. I think the downside is that it could force players to have to return to a water source which kinda negates the freedom of exploration. You know what I mean? Portable medicine from past games is indeed overpowered and easy way out, but it is also a welcome convenience to not constantly going back to the doctor, merchant, looting bodies, or in the case of a partially-arid region: a water source. Another downside is if they put too many convenient water sources, then we'll have heals for days. Some players'll be like.. "why the heck is there so much conveniently placed water sources in places where it might not make sense?!".

This is a good point. You could regenerate say half your life automatically and then have water to fill up. Or there can be plenty of water sources in the world (I mean the god damn Nile!) and more limited within outposts. I like your idea of guarded water sources as then it becomes a bit of a trade off. Should I risk encountering those guards to fill up, or should I push forward? But I agree completely that the medicine system was a bit tedious so there needs to be some thought put into it for sure!



I do think if they go down this route, they would need to include a bottle (no overpowered capacity). If we were to go deeper into the desert or inside a tomb, there might not be water in those places in certain situations. Bottle also offers the player the option to drink from a reliable, trustworthy source instead of having to drink from a palace fountain during an infiltration mission. I like the idea of an assassin pulling out a water sac while crouching on top of a beam, instead of always relying on water sources in the environment, on the ground, etc.


Good image! That's one of the things I like in MAd Max. Standing on the top of a cliff, scouting a camp, then refill on water before going to war. It looks pretty epic, just drinking water with the vast desert as background!




Oh yeah, Mad Max has a ton of features that Ubi should look to, particularly if Egypt is really the next game. I think Mad Max did a really good job of creating a large and empty seeming desert, while still preventing it from being boring. Seriously, though, the game is huge!

I totally agree that water would really add to the atmosphere of the game. It definitely did in Max. Regarding implementation- in Mad Max, water was typically gathered at spigots. They could be located in bases, enemy camps, and sometimes even just randomly in small shelters in the wilderness. Unless Egypt is far more modern than we're expecting that probably would't exactly work- but wells could still be used, right?


I'm 10h in now and I'm kind of loving it tbh :D! Mad Max is the perfect franchise for the collectathon style of OW. The different areas in the desert are given an identity through clever use of colors, terrain etc. I agree they have really nailed a varied desert (I'm still have more than half the map unexplored, so no final verdict yet)!

I think we could steal water from roaming caravans/bandits. Oasis, the Nile, underground streams as natural sources. I think the old Egyptians had wells, but that could be wrong lol.



Ohh this is a cool idea! I like the idea of the water being a valuable resource and even used as a currency in some areas like Mad Max.

It's cool as a currency as it creates a natural trade-off. Maybe you could even have the option to fill your bottle with poison instead and switch health for an extra offensive option?



I like that model, and it makes sense both thematically and from a design perspective. Of course the water would be more of a precious commodity in the desert as opposed to the city- you know, because of that whole thing about being in the freakin desert.

And late in the game, we probably should see a little bit of an increase in difficulty. It might seem a little "survivor horror-y", but I think this is one way it can be done.

Yes like this! It can be used to control the difficulty very easily!


Sounds cool...

Though not sure about drinking water from a camel...Personally speaking, like... :o ...

Perhaps the spread out water sources/oases could be like the Borgia Tower/Byzantine Den thing...You fight to claim it as your own, and then you have to periodically fight to keep it yours like in Revelations...

Now that you say it I demand camel hump refills! Fighting for water, me like that idea as well!

Farlander1991
08-02-2016, 06:07 PM
It's not necessarily easier, it depends on how easy it is to find refills. If you are in an enemy camp with no water sources it's effectively just an extension of the health meter and enemies can be scaled reltive to that. Problem with the medecine is that you had like what 15 bottles or something? Balanced correctly it can actually add a tad bit more strategy to the game.

Well, balance is not just a numerical thing. For example, when it comes to AC2, you start out with a maximum of 5 bottles and that's enough to never die in combat. But balance can be achieved in different ways. For example, if medicine would've been applied not instantly, but some animation that can be interrupted in combat would play, and medicine applies only after the animation finishes (and the animation would have to be longer then the quick 1-second motion Ezio has in the game), then it already would be more tricky to use medicine in combat and therefore refill health from 0.5 to full while there's a brute swinging an axe at you.

cawatrooper9
08-02-2016, 06:43 PM
Well, balance is not just a numerical thing. For example, when it comes to AC2, you start out with a maximum of 5 bottles and that's enough to never die in combat. But balance can be achieved in different ways. For example, if medicine would've been applied not instantly, but some animation that can be interrupted in combat would play, and medicine applies only after the animation finishes (and the animation would have to be longer then the quick 1-second motion Ezio has in the game), then it already would be more tricky to use medicine in combat and therefore refill health from 0.5 to full while there's a brute swinging an axe at you.

That's true. Far cry 3 did something like that, if I recall correctly.

I do like that model as well, as it allows for the application of healing while not really limiting supplies. I guess it depends on whether or not people see the limiting of supplies as useful and thematic (as pointed out, it does make sense in a desert) or simply frustrating.

Ureh
08-02-2016, 09:44 PM
Hmm, I can imagine a portable water bottle working if it's introduced in the later stages of the game. Like an upgrade, basically. While the player is still in the city, it makes sense they wouldn't have need to carry a bottle around because there will always be water sources, but then in the third act they have to venture into the desert for story reasons (to locate a First Civ temple or something) and they can't make that journey without a portable water source. When you give the player the upgrade, you can still balance it by making them have to refill it where they can. So the bottle will make their health stretch longer but not forever. They would still need to find oases here and there, or maybe trade with nomads, or maybe there's a ritual fountain or an old well inside the temple. You would only get a precious few refill spots in that late half so you shouldn't be reckless with your health and wouldn't be overpowered.

Oh oh and our camel can help us carry water too. Sorta like the saddle bag in AC3, you know? Like a free, but maybe limited refill?

---
btw, would it make sense to put a cooldown on the water sources (ie instead of being represented by a timer or warning pop-up on the hud, we can see that the water source is "drained" or only half-full)? Nah, probably not. Players should be able to heal-up and refill at anytime and as much as they want at a water source.

Mr.Black24
08-03-2016, 04:13 AM
Its funny how this was the same model that Ubisoft had in its old franchise: Prince Of Persia.

Idk how one would say that the Assassin would carry 13 water canteens...its refillable. Why not be upgradable in size? And you control the amount you drink, which will in turn control how much you refill your health meter. Like hold the O button to drink to the amount you want.

Dukat7
08-03-2016, 04:39 AM
What if we expand from the regular healing system? We are fixed on the old health system where you get hit, you lose some points and then you use medicine to heal yourself. However, why not change or even remove such a system completely? I suggest using the water as an aid to heal you, but not heal you if that makes sense. Instead of healing points, we have an arbitrary system that counts the hits to the extremities. So if an enemy hits you in the arm consistently, then you will not be able to attack as fast and as effectively. If he hits you in the leg you do not run as fast after a certain period of time (accounting for the adrenaline release). Water, with combination of other factors, will help alleviate and slow down these symptoms until you can get to a doctor which may take a day or a week to help you recover. However, even if you are close to dying, you are still able to move as it may become too tedious always limping. Just as in some cut-scenes, we see people who are close to death able to move and fight, we may be able to mimic such a system and incorporate into the game.

LoyalACFan
08-03-2016, 07:34 AM
Given Ubi games' fetish for tower/viewpoint zone-unlocking, I could see them having us conquer wells in the desert so that we can later use them as fast-travel points :p

But really, I do like the idea. Someone mentioned it just being cosmetic, which sort of reminds me of the shower in MGS5; didn't really do much gameplay-wise, but it washed away all the blood and grit you'd accumulated during gameplay and added a neat little incentive for returning to Mother Base every now and then, to physically and metaphorically "wash off" the gore of the battlefield.

Locopells
08-03-2016, 11:36 AM
Its funny how this was the same model that Ubisoft had in its old franchise: Prince Of Persia.

Yeah, that was kinda the point - take a look at the OP.

Mr.Black24
08-03-2016, 04:07 PM
Yeah, that was kinda the point - take a look at the OP.
No I understood alright. What I mean is that I find it a bit humorous that it took another game to remind others of this when Ubisoft had done this mechanic long ago, I.E: Prince of Persia. They can take that same system from it with some modifications and it would work out great!:)

Helforsite
08-03-2016, 07:51 PM
I think it should not be a simple replacement to medicine, but if we havent drunk enough water our health should deteriorate slowly and we should slow down(slower climbing,maybe slipping while climbing, slower reaction in combat). and eventually die. The difficulty with this would be to make it fast enough to give us an incentive to seek out water, but not so fast as to make it annoying and having to constantly get water.
Something like 15minutes of real time with outh any effect after completely filling up on water(with your bottle holding 2 full fillings), a slowing of all character movement by 10% every 15 minutes and health reduction at the speed of 1% health every 27 seconds with being able to survive 5 minutes at 0%health to give you a chance to get to a water source.
Water refill stations should be spaced in 30 minutes intervals in mission and not to common in the open world either.

SixKeys
08-03-2016, 08:08 PM
I think it should not be a simple replacement to medicine, but if we havent drunk enough water our health should deteriorate slowly and we should slow down(slower climbing,maybe slipping while climbing, slower reaction in combat). and eventually die. The difficulty with this would be to make it fast enough to give us an incentive to seek out water, but not so fast as to make it annoying and having to constantly get water.
Something like 15minutes of real time with outh any effect after completely filling up on water(with your bottle holding 2 full fillings), a slowing of all character movement by 10% every 15 minutes and health reduction at the speed of 1% health every 27 seconds with being able to survive 5 minutes at 0%health to give you a chance to get to a water source.
Water refill stations should be spaced in 30 minutes intervals in mission and not to common in the open world either.

Ugh, please no. That may work for other games but not AC. I don't want to keep a constant eye on a depleting health meter while I'm just exploring for fun and going after collectibles. Slowing down movement for any reason is a bad idea in a game where those things are already buggy enough without making them even more cumbersome on purpose.

cawatrooper9
08-03-2016, 08:46 PM
Ugh, please no. That may work for other games but not AC. I don't want to keep a constant eye on a depleting health meter while I'm just exploring for fun and going after collectibles. Slowing down movement for any reason is a bad idea in a game where those things are already buggy enough without making them even more cumbersome on purpose.

Agreed.

Some penalty would be fine, but I wouldn't want to die of thirst in an AC game.

One thinkg that comes to mind is the semi-regenerating health in many of the games. Medicine was needed to get fully nursed back up to health, but you'd regenerate some HP simply by avoiding a hit when near death as well- not a lot, but skilfully avoiding combat in these situations was a good was to really stretch out the amount of hits you could take without wasting medicine.

With water, it could be the opposite- maybe if you've gone half an hour without drink your character would lost something like the top 10% HP. That way it does pretty much nothing if they're already wounded (as they clearly have bigger problems) but it still is an incentive to stay hydrated so as to be fully prepared for a fight.

MikeFNY
08-09-2016, 10:17 AM
I didn't read all posts in the thread so apologies if I'm being repetitive but health has always been a major problem of AC, I mean the idea of putting your hand in your pocket to take out this magic potion that regenerates all your health in the middle of a battle is so ..... :rolleyes:

Better but still unrealistic is the AC3 type of health which regenerates with time.

Water is a nice idea but I would go a step further and keep health as it is in Syndicate, hence you need medicine to heal but:

a. You can only do it when anonymous
b. You have to find a doctor to heal you, you cannot do it alone

Doctors could be added to your "team" by liberating them AC3-style and you could place them in a strategic way across the map so you always find one when you need him.

cawatrooper9
08-09-2016, 04:28 PM
Water is a nice idea but I would go a step further and keep health as it is in Syndicate, hence you need medicine to heal but:

a. You can only do it when anonymous
b. You have to find a doctor to heal you, you cannot do it alone

Doctors could be added to your "team" by liberating them AC3-style and you could place them in a strategic way across the map so you always find one when you need him.

I get that that way is more realistic, but it sounds kind of like a pain.

MikeFNY
08-09-2016, 04:58 PM
I get that that way is more realistic, but it sounds kind of like a pain.

Painful healing :)

Yes, in fact that's why I added the second part, one has to use his brain to understand where to strategically place (shall we call them) clinics.

So if you're about to start a tough main mission in a certain area of the map, you will first need to find the required coins or items to craft a clinic in a nearby area.

Else yes, you would have to travel a long distance just to be healed.

Not to mention fast travel that would make it incredibly unrealistic.

cawatrooper9
08-09-2016, 06:22 PM
Painful healing :)

Yes, in fact that's why I added the second part, one has to use his brain to understand where to strategically place (shall we call them) clinics.

So if you're about to start a tough main mission in a certain area of the map, you will first need to find the required coins or items to craft a clinic in a nearby area.

Else yes, you would have to travel a long distance just to be healed.

Not to mention fast travel that would make it incredibly unrealistic.

Yeah, I mean if the healing spots are sedentary on the map like that, it would be a neat addition to at least place them. I just don't think that the immersion-breaking of using a health kit really justifies the inconvenience.

Ureh
08-09-2016, 08:21 PM
That would be pretty neat if there's a renovation system where you can build irrigation systems and wells (in places that are determined by the devs). Similar to the aqueducts in ACB where you can bring water to certain places (and even unlock certain locations). That way in the beginning it can be a tiny bit harder to acquire, but as your influence spread you'll find it easier to get more water. More water for you also means more water for everyone! You'll see more plants growing, more fauna, and more crops too. "Crowd" events can eventually turn from a person dying of thirst to a person walking up to you and thanking you with a small refill of your water.


I didn't read all posts in the thread so apologies if I'm being repetitive but health has always been a major problem of AC, I mean the idea of putting your hand in your pocket to take out this magic potion that regenerates all your health in the middle of a battle is so ..... :rolleyes:

Better but still unrealistic is the AC3 type of health which regenerates with time.

Water is a nice idea but I would go a step further and keep health as it is in Syndicate, hence you need medicine to heal but:

a. You can only do it when anonymous
b. You have to find a doctor to heal you, you cannot do it alone

Doctors could be added to your "team" by liberating them AC3-style and you could place them in a strategic way across the map so you always find one when you need him.

Health regenerates overtime in ACS as well, both during and out of combat.

a. I like these ideas except I feel it should be up to the player on whether or not they want to press the medicine/water button, you know? I know it can be tempting to press it because the game isn't stopping you, but ultimately it should be our decision.
b. Reminds me of the earlier games where we can't access Doctors in combat, and I believe they didn't let us buy stuff/refills from stores or change items during missions as well. I think there's good and bad to these things... these days AC is more focused on rpg elements and that comes with being able to buy stuff at anytime, change your clothes at anytime, and change your weapons too. A lot of players like that, just like there might be a lot that don't.

MikeFNY
08-09-2016, 08:52 PM
a. I like these ideas except I feel it should be up to the player on whether or not they want to press the medicine/water button, you know? I know it can be tempting to press it because the game isn't stopping you, but ultimately it should be our decision.

Absolutely, in fact even in this case I believe there is an easy way out such as besides being able to heal you, the doctor can manufacture or alchemize or whatever a medicine that can be used to regenerate health even in combat for those who don't want this particular part of the game to be realistic.

Then granted, I'm no designer so maybe I'm making everything easy but I believe it shouldn't be a problem to combine an already-existing feature - medicine - with being healed by a doctor. Ultimately they both work the same, one requires the player to push a button to use medicine, the other requires the player to use a button to talk to a doctor.

cawatrooper9
08-09-2016, 10:15 PM
Absolutely, in fact even in this case I believe there is an easy way out such as besides being able to heal you, the doctor can manufacture or alchemize or whatever a medicine that can be used to regenerate health even in combat for those who don't want this particular part of the game to be realistic.

Then granted, I'm no designer so maybe I'm making everything easy but I believe it shouldn't be a problem to combine an already-existing feature - medicine - with being healed by a doctor. Ultimately they both work the same, one requires the player to push a button to use medicine, the other requires the player to use a button to talk to a doctor.

Well, the Ezio trilogy did have this, in addition to medicine. Would that suffice?

MikeFNY
08-10-2016, 08:44 AM
Well, the Ezio trilogy did have this, in addition to medicine. Would that suffice?

I would be lucky to remember what I did last night. In AC2 you could be healed by the doctor besides buying medicine?

In that case, yes, that would be a nice return with some minor differences such as that you decide where doctors have their clinics, if I remember correctly in AC2 they were already placed for you and you couldn't move them.

And also there should be a liberation mission AC3-style to find doctors for the clinics.

cawatrooper9
08-10-2016, 02:19 PM
I would be lucky to remember what I did last night. In AC2 you could be healed by the doctor besides buying medicine?

In that case, yes, that would be a nice return with some minor differences such as that you decide where doctors have their clinics, if I remember correctly in AC2 they were already placed for you and you couldn't move them.

And also there should be a liberation mission AC3-style to find doctors for the clinics.

Haha, fair enough.

Yep, in ACII/ACB and I believe also ACR you could go to doctors (remember the Plague masks in ACII?) They would sell you medicine, but could also heal you right on the spot, I believe for a reduced fee when compared to medicine.

Ureh
08-10-2016, 06:53 PM
I think the concept of choosing to place the clinics wherever we want sounds like a neat idea but the flexibility of this system depends on how malleable the setting & landscape are. The renovations were a bit easier to fit in the games because there were spots in the cities that were reserved for those vendors and shops. We're replaying the memories of an ancestor which means giving more freedom to place clinics would kinda go against the idea of "our ancestor did it this way". If they were to allow the player more freedom on where to set up clinics, shops, or whatever, then that would require a lot more work because this is stuff that we usually only find in strategy games (ex: like let's say we want to put a clinic next to a mission area, then they would have to include a lot of empty spots away from other buildings in the city, or they'd have to include a "demolish" system where we first need to knock down neighboring buildings before setting-up the clinic, etc.). They could go the route of Fallout 4, where instead of letting the players build stuff anywhere in the wasteland, they can only build stuff on a small settlement. But if the player is only allowed a small amount of real estate to place a single clinic or shop, then why bother going through the trouble in the first place right? It'd be easier if it was like ACB/R where the spots are already determined by the devs, and then they leave it up to players on whether or not they want to occupy that specific spot with a doctor. They'd have to go all-in like the Fallout 4 system where there's a bunch of craftables and other stuff to justify the build-wherever-you-want feature. Pretty sure I don't want them to make Assassin's Creed: SimCity edition.

I prefer how the doctors work in the Ezio games:
1. Great costumes, funny dialogue, and very cute examination tables stocked with herbs, leeches, bandages, etc. It's great for setting the mood of bustling and varied cities, instead of the all-purpose vendors we started seeing in the 18-19th century games.
2. In the Renovation systems of ACB/R, the locations of the doctor shops and doctor tables are pre-determined by the game. However, it was up to the player on whether or not they wanted to have more doctor shops across each district. So if a player rarely invested in the apothecary businesses then they'll have less places to ask for healing and stuff. The only downside in those games is that the efficacy of medicine became redundant once a player realised that they're actually a near-invincible juggernaut. Therefore the proliferation of doctors mostly lends to the atmosphere of cities that were recovering/growing (And this is assuming if the player even takes notice of the improvements to the city.).

That's where water comes in. We're discussing water as an aesthetic/cosmetic substitute to medicine because we're presuming that the next game will take place largely in an arid region, close to a desert. At this point we don't know anything about combat in the next game so we've no reason to believe that water (aka medicine) will be more meaningful than it was in the past games. Really we're just talking about water as more of a "roleplaying" feature if we are going to a desert next time.

I will say that I am getting that strategic-vibe from what you've brought up (I like the idea of our character facing a certain situation and having to make a choice, "Hmm... there are a lot of guards in the entrance, if I'm forced to retreat from a fight then it would be a good idea to place a clinic here, which I can visit after I become incognito."). It might have to do with my limited knowledge of the series, or maybe I'm currently unable to see what you see. But for now I don't see any immediate benefits to us being able to place clinics wherever we want. In ACS, the gameplay was easy enough that most players won't need to restock their ammo. In ACU, they put enough vendors outside the mission areas and the players could leave at anytime - without exiting the memory - to refill their ammo, etc. Ultimately, I think it should be the devs who determine where the shops, clinics, and all that stuff should be located since they're very familiar with the balance of the game; they did a lot of playtesting so they already know where are the best spots to place the vendors.

MikeFNY
08-11-2016, 07:54 AM
I will say that I am getting that strategic-vibe from what you've brought up (I like the idea of our character facing a certain situation and having to make a choice, "Hmm... there are a lot of guards in the entrance, if I'm forced to retreat from a fight then it would be a good idea to place a clinic here, which I can visit after I become incognito."). It might have to do with my limited knowledge of the series, or maybe I'm currently unable to see what you see.

It's just that health is one of the things that bothers me the most in the game.

I know that maybe I'm "overreacting" on this particular issue but think about it: why are we even discussing medicine and health when the moment you die you resume the mission from the same checkpoint with your health fully regenerated?

AC has almost always been a game where the "all out attack" approach works nicely.

You die? No problem, you're back as if nothing happened.

If I may be the first one on these forums to reference another game (:D), one of the most frustrating things in Bloodborne is how you have to restart the same part over and over again until you find the checkpoint, a lamp if I'm not wrong.

It's frustrating but it gives you a reason to plan accordingly and before hand. The "all out attack" approach simply doesn't work in that game.

If AC is to introduce health as a percentage that does not auto-regenerate and cannot be recuperated through medicine, you, as a player will have to plan a mission before executing it, hence my idea of also placing clinics close to the area.

This means that you have to be extremely careful with your health because if you lose, let's say, 80% of it, you will have to leave the area to heal yourself but not only: when you resume the mission all guards will be back with the addition of more guards because they know you'll be back.

I mean heck, you're an assassin, one of the tenets is "Hide in plain sight", it's never been "Go berserk son, don't worry, if you die we'll give you another try."

cawatrooper9
08-11-2016, 02:18 PM
It's just that health is one of the things that bothers me the most in the game.

I know that maybe I'm "overreacting" on this particular issue but think about it: why are we even discussing medicine and health when the moment you die you resume the mission from the same checkpoint with your health fully regenerated?

AC has almost always been a game where the "all out attack" approach works nicely.

You die? No problem, you're back as if nothing happened.

If I may be the first one on these forums to reference another game (:D), one of the most frustrating things in Bloodborne is how you have to restart the same part over and over again until you find the checkpoint, a lamp if I'm not wrong.

It's frustrating but it gives you a reason to plan accordingly and before hand. The "all out attack" approach simply doesn't work in that game.

If AC is to introduce health as a percentage that does not auto-regenerate and cannot be recuperated through medicine, you, as a player will have to plan a mission before executing it, hence my idea of also placing clinics close to the area.

This means that you have to be extremely careful with your health because if you lose, let's say, 80% of it, you will have to leave the area to heal yourself but not only: when you resume the mission all guards will be back with the addition of more guards because they know you'll be back.

I mean heck, you're an assassin, one of the tenets is "Hide in plain sight", it's never been "Go berserk son, don't worry, if you die we'll give you another try."

Yes, that is one of the tenets. And, as we see in the first moments of the first game, the Assassins aren't always the greatest at following them.

What the Assassins really fight for is freedom- the Templars would call it chaos, but that's simply because they want to control what others do.

I know that I typically like to align with the Templars, but when it comes to gameplay I'm an Assassin through and through. Want to be stealthy? Great! Want to go berserk? Go for it! Want to use medicine? Fine! Want to not use health enhancements? Doesn't make a difference to me!

The freedom to choose, the open level design, the open world itself- that's what the Creed is really about, and I'd hate to restrict what other players can do.

MikeFNY
08-11-2016, 02:46 PM
The freedom to choose, the open level design, the open world itself- that's what the Creed is really about, and I'd hate to restrict what other players can do.
That would be true if we actually had the freedom to choose but we don't.

If I see my health deteriorating and I want a realistic approach where it doesn't go back up automatically, I can do nothing against it.

And if I want to be stealthy but one of the optional objectives is to use a noisy bomb, I can only wave goodbye to my stealthy approach.

Similarly if I want to engage in combat but I get desynchronised if I get detected.

Freedom to choose went to sleep the moment optional objectives were introduced in the game.

Also, I never said we should restrict what other players want to do, in fact I agree with you and made it clear that the medicine system used in previous games should be retained.

There is no reason why we can't have the best of both worlds.

Ureh
08-13-2016, 01:33 AM
It's just that health is one of the things that bothers me the most in the game.

1. I know that maybe I'm "overreacting" on this particular issue but think about it: why are we even discussing medicine and health when the moment you die you resume the mission from the same checkpoint with your health fully regenerated?

2. AC has almost always been a game where the "all out attack" approach works nicely.

3. I mean heck, you're an assassin, one of the tenets is "Hide in plain sight", it's never been "Go berserk son, don't worry, if you die we'll give you another try."

Yeah that's one of the tough balancing acts that the developers have to face everyday. How to make the game enjoyable for players of skill levels. I do think that the people who want more challenge are usually drawing the short straw.

1. That's up to the player though right? I don't see many players that want to or are willing to die over and over again just because the game can reset their health after a desync. It's impractical and would take awhile for the loading screen to end, so most players probably want to play the games properly. The same can be said for the Bloodborne game you mentioned: all bonfires/lamps are predetermined by the developers, the flow of the game is determined by the devs, enemy placements, blood vials efficacy. The reason why all of these work the way they do is because of the enemy behaviours, enemy damage, your characters controls and movements, and your character damage. The devs at From Soft wanted to create an unforgiving experience that focuses solely on combat. The AC devs are not trying to create a punishing game, they want to make something that has a modicum of challenge and a downpour of relaxation and freedom (whether or not they succeeded on the latter will vary for each player). In Bloodborne, you've no choice but to either keep ramming your head against the beasts or to adapt to the combat; to advance the story you have to fight. AC is all about allowing players to either do 100% combat, 100% stealth, or improvise with both (shifting from one from to another). Bloodborne even has lore that explains why the player can die over and over again: cause it's a dream/nightmare and something is preventing you from truly waking up. AC also has lore to explains why players can keep failing over and over: descyncing in the Animus. I do see your point though: Low challenge in AC games means some players feel that the gameplay isn't "meaningful". It's all about perspective and preference, so there is no wrong or right answer in that department, I think.

2. I believe that's the intention since the very first game. Patrice described the mission structure and how NPCs will react to you (AC1 artbook interview, page 54):


The player has the freedom to experiment with all of this. Maybe some players will be mostly a fighter--they'll fight everybody there is to fight--and that's okay. We won't punish the player for doing so. Another one will be a social assassin. It's possible to go and have no fight whatsoever--

3. Yeah the detachment between the tenets, objectives and actual gameplay can be pretty big. I think something like this can be seen by the players as either inconsistency, while others can see it as the freedom to do whatever we want in a game even though it might not always produce a harmonious experience. Not sure how Bloodborne works if someone where to die over and over again (something tells that that's going to happen to most people even if they're experienced with Souls games and try their hardest to not die). But as for me, I have no idea what is the desync rate among the AC player base... how many people actually fail over and over again until they're about to lose hope? And if the restart/desync rate is not high in the AC player base, is that a good or bad thing? Based on my preference I like a challenge but I certainly don't like dieing/restarting for a long time. At the end of the day I'm playing the game to be entertained and to have fun without pulling my hair out (all the time), and I find AC fits that shoe. And every once in a while I like games that make the players struggle or at least require them to devote all their energy, thought, and skill into it. If AC wants to be a more dedicated stealth game, then yes, I agree that there is a lot of things that would need to be changed/improved. Right now though, it wants to be the for-everyone game (which can be perceived as a problem or a solution too).

----

Also you mentioned that optional objectives prevent players from completing the missions the way they want. They're optional right? I understand that trophy/achievement hunters who only play the game(s) once will probably feel compelled to complete those but that's a choice that was made. All the other plays can choose to ignore them since optional objectives don't unlock any rewards or grant any large benefits upon completion.

---
Forgot to mention that I have not played Bloodborne yet, only watched other people play it. Apologies if I got anything wrong about it.

MikeFNY
08-13-2016, 08:54 AM
Yeah that's one of the tough balancing acts that the developers have to face everyday. How to make the game enjoyable for players of skill levels. I do think that the people who want more challenge are usually drawing the short straw.
Again, I fully understand what you mean.

I wanted to start by clarifying that I'm not comparing Bloodborne to AC completely, just the difficulty aspect of the two games. I already made a mistake with Uncharted, in not being clear enough, just wanted to make sure that I'm not doing a 1:1 comparison here :)

And you're right.

Of all the games I played in these last 2-3 years, AC is by far the easiest so it does please whoever wants to spend those 40 hours without any frustration.

But what about those who want a challenge?

Unity improved on this but unfortunately the result was many players (mind you, including myself at the beginning) complaining and whining because the combat is too difficult, because there are way too many guards, etc.

What happened next? Syndicate ended up being the easiest game of the whole series, absolutely no challenge at all.

But the problem is what? That sooner or later the player will get fed up of the same formula over and over again. Now I'm not necessary saying that the reason why the series is in such a confusing state at the moment is because of how easy it is, but I sincerely believe that if they make it more challenging yet retaining all that makes it easy at the moment, it would help.

There are many threads on other forums raising this problem, one user suggested to make the enemies able to disarm you, that would be nice, but something like that should raise the difficulty bar, right now armed or not the result is the same.

You say it's up to the player, unfortunately at the moment, it's not.

Unity was the only game where with self-imposed rules I ended up having exactly the challenge I wanted, and when I saw exactly I mean it. I had to try a mission something like 10-15 times before completing it the way I wanted to. And clearly, "10-15" is not "1" but also it's not the "30" times I tried that Bloodborne mission before giving up completely :)

In respect to optional objectives, yes, they are optional but name me one serious player who decided to ignore them completely. At least they don't flash red anymore :)

pacmanate
08-13-2016, 03:27 PM
Yes. Playing through Mad Max it works great. You need to hold down a button to drink the water and it regenerates health the longer you drink. Its a way better system than AC's full heal at a button press medicine.