Index | FAQ | Search | Memberlist | Usergroups | Profile | Log in to check your private messages | Log in | Register

The Merits of Healthy Living

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> Gameplay & Design

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
scar3crow Inside3D Staff Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 837 Location: Las Vegas, NV

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: The Merits of Healthy Living |

Health, we need it to not gib. We all struggle against infections, t-virus, and T_Damage. The question is, how much is too much? It is mostly accepted that first person shooters do health on a percentile basis, generically speaking. The healthy player has 100 health, but these are also 100 hitpoints, not a true percentage.
In Quake, health pickups occur in 15, 25, and 100, however it also includes the health rot, thus, inevitably, you are at 100 health or even lower. You receive damage from a multitude of enemies and traps, hitscan, projectile and brush based, you also can drown, be harmed by slime or lava, and take falling damage or damage yourself via your own weapons...
Doom in contrast not only lacks health rot, it has health bonuses, +1 pickups that take you beyond 100, a +100 that takes you beyond 100, and Doom2 has the Megasphere which lumps you into 200 health and armor in one swift motion. Even more so, in Doom there is no drowning, crushing ceilings are the only trap beyond ambushes and those are just generally death anyways... not even falling damage. Basically in Doom if you want to kill yourself, stand in some Hell Slime (20dmg per tick or so) or kill Demons with just rockets.
Blood lacks health rot, but also +1 bonuses, the lifeseed is the only way to go over 100, but the enemies dish out a lot of damage in that game, and many of them are accurate hitscan attacks. Falling damage is common, the player has numerous attacks that can damage him (flaregun alt fire, tnt, aerosol altfire, napalm cannon, missing with the voodoo doll, I believe the tesla alt fire, and running out of ammo with the lifeleech), along with a whole host of traps, spikes, buzzsaws, crushers, explosions from many locations. Blood dishes a lot of damage and covers you only with a lifeseed and medkit ala Duke3d. Blood2 on the other hand sets the max health differently, medkit only works up until 100 health, but enemies commonly drop health which can take you to 200, and a lifeseed can take you to 300!
Obviously these games have different levels of volatility (skill settings aside) and danger to the player. I would like to hear some input from modders or mappers regarding health distribution and damage distribution. How much does that mage do with his fire? Supernail shooter or just plain nails? Do enemies drop health pickups? What is your logic on whether or not to exceed the 100 limit? When placing health, how hard is it to reach or is it directly in the path? (As a conservative player, I like health accessible but on the side, nothing I hate more than having 98 health on a Quake map and trying to jump over that 25 health I dont want to waste because the mapper placed it in the middle of the path).

Back to top |

lth Joined: 11 Nov 2004 Posts: 129 |

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:17 pm Post subject: |

imho you should finish every level with 1hp and 1 shell left. So, designers should be aiming to be continually knocking health off the player and not topping it all the way back up throughout the level. The problem with health-based games is that losing health has no real impact on the player until it gets to zero when they have to restart the map from scratch (which is why there's save/load). More interesting is something like X-Com when you have lots of characters but even if they all die your game doesn't have to end - it's a setback, sure, but you can still go on to win.
_________________
randomviolence - tactical combat boardgame

Back to top |

MauveBib Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 602 |

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |

I like Nexuiz's health system, but only for a deathmatch game. It'd be way too good in a single player game. _________________ Apathy Now!

Back to top |

Dr. Shadowborg Inside3D Staff Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 726 |

Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:42 pm Post subject: |

lth wrote:
imho you should finish every level with 1hp and 1 shell left. So, designers should be aiming to be continually knocking health off the player and not topping it all the way back up throughout the level. The problem with health-based games is that losing health has no real impact on the player until it gets to zero when they have to restart the map from scratch (which is why there's save/load). More interesting is something like X-Com when you have lots of characters but even if they all die your game doesn't have to end - it's a setback, sure, but you can still go on to win.

What if you're playing an episode?
That's not really a real big problem provided you have a good boss fight. Then it starts to have a real impact on the player. Afterall, it'd be no fun to constantly get one hit instakilled by a boss.
_________________
"Roboto suggests Plasma Bazooka."

Back to top |

than Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 15 |

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:04 am Post subject: |

In my opinion, the best time is when you are low on health and there are no health packs around. You continue to make a little progress, kill a couple of monsters, then find a small health stash that puts you back to 50-70% FIGHTING FIT! The health should come just after the player has been shitting themselves about health for a minute or two.
If there is no health top-ups at all, then the player is just going to die all the time until they can play flawlessly, which sucks. It's good to have a nice balance of stress and relief, and then some moments when there is plenty of health and ammo, but also many monsters to use it on
Level balancing is a nightmare though... really. You have no idea who is going to be playing your map or how good they are. I've been beta testing recently, and found that there is an absolutely VAST difference between me playing the map (knowing where everything is, knowing the best weapons for each situation etc.) and a first time tester - even if I ignore all secrets.

Back to top |

Bank Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 25 |

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: Re: The Merits of Healthy Living |

scar3crow wrote:
Doom in contrast not only lacks health rot, it has health bonuses, +1 pickups that take you beyond 100, a +100 that takes you beyond 100, and Doom2 has the Megasphere which lumps you into 200 health and armor in one swift motion. Even more so, in Doom there is no drowning, crushing ceilings are the only trap beyond ambushes and those are just generally death anyways... not even falling damage. Basically in Doom if you want to kill yourself, stand in some Hell Slime (20dmg per tick or so) or kill Demons with just rockets.

Doomguy's a juicer, he has that extra threshold for pain. : D
_________________
"When my name is dropped, it's kinda like a curse word. People react to it in very different ways." -Bank

Back to top |

INU Joined: 26 Aug 2006 Posts: 3 |

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: |

Sorry if I'm posting in a dead-ish topic... Every post I've seen is talking about set (when I refer to "set", it is stuff the designer/leveler decides) amount of health, the level/mod designer decides when, where, or how often you will get your health. It's good, but it's a little tedious when a player can't find a health pack and start stressing out on where one is. I think it makes some players obsessive-compulsive about their health. To go back and forth between two points just to get back to a safe level of health adds a bit of stress.
Set health on the game-design side has it's share of problems. Is there too much or too little health in this level? Am I providing enough challenge to the player to make him/her satisfied but not have him/her babied through the game? How can I make the player use a weapon, but keep the player from abusing it too much without having the weapon being disliked/unused? Health has four main factors that a designer/leveler has to decide: When, where, how often, and how much to add or subtract (negative forces, like monsters or weapons). The designer/leveler has to figure out a way to keep the game doable and present a challenge for the player while keeping the game enjoyable.
Some measures that have been invented to keep the player somewhat alive are power-ups (the player has an advantage, and may keep health, gain health, or have some advantage worth the health loss), armour (the player will receive less damage), and skill settings (if the game is made easier, the player will have a better time keeping health). That's probably the most any action game can give the player without over-complicating things. If a player can grab it, he can have instant satisfaction. Sometimes instant satisfaction with set health can be frustrating as well. As you just got the Quad Damage, but not before or during a fight, so you need to rush to get in your last two seconds worth of quad-rockets to make the most of your powerup.
Now I'll switch over to looking at health management, which is different than set health. Health management, unlike set health, is player oriented. The player has more of a choice between how to deal with their health-related issues. Anyone who has played a console-style RPG like one of the Final Fantasy games or an MMORPG has had at least a minimal health management crash course.
Do I use my potion during, before, or after the fight? Should I use this inn? Do I put my stats towards HP (health) or STR (attack damage)? I have low HP, should I kill the cute and cuddly rabit, or slaughter it? Maybe I'll have to use that healing spell... Those are some examples that are presented in a game with health management. The developer decides where players may need items, usually at regular intervals, and how much the player would have to work to get some health (kill some slugs for some gold to buy potions, or have enough magic power to cast a spell). Players get to choose how much effort would go into to maintain health.
Health management also branches off into stats, where the player can build some efficient or preffered character that suits their playing style to kill faster or in a certain, safer way. I'm not gonna get into it, it's complicated. Another branch, now popular in action games and RPGs, are class systems. A player decides a character that suits his/her own playing style. I'll oversimplify it a little by using an example of two classes: Fighters and Supporters. Fighters kill things, and keep Supporters alive. Supporters heal fighers, and power them up. Fighters can act independantly from Supporters if they can keep a supply of health-restoring items on hand. Supporters can fight monsters, but it will be a bit harder or longer. Et cetera, et cetera. Class based systems usually encourage other players to help out, or have a player play with his/her style while having defined advantages/disadvantages.
Fluid health is something that both designers and players have limited control over. It spills into health management and set health a little, but it's a different concept. Fluid health is usually an addition or a feature to a game. It's added on, and integrated with either health management or a set health system. It's somewhat based on how well or what strategy players adopt. I'll talk about two of them in the next couple of paragraphs...
Gradual HP regen and Bleeding - Bleeding and HP regen have been features of some action games and RPGs respectfully. If you get shot, you will bleed. The bleeding part is set. If you find a med-kit (something from a set game), you will stop bleeding. It also becomes a tactic of a player to bleed less or make others bleed more. If a player stands still, his/her health will regen +1 every ten seconds. The player decides wether to stand still or not. Standing still both helping and making them an easy target. A great example is Halo 2, for three reasons: 1) Health is invisible or non-existant (which keeps players from worrying about it) 2) The shield is the replacement for health, it keeps the player alive unless s/he is sloppy, but will regenerate. 3) There are no med-kits, because health isn't known to the player, s/he needs not worry about it.
Walking Health Packs - Some games allow players to leech off their prey. Leeching off prey gives a player some reason to fight, some of the time or rewards them for fighting. I'll take Metroid Prime: Hunters for one example. In MP:H, one of the characters, Sylux, has a Lightning Gun style weapon, called the Shock Coil, which slowly does damage to the enemy but gives Sylux back his health, effectively turning his enemy into a source of health. Of course, he has to be in range, and it's a challenge to get health. Some other games reward players for reaching a goal, killing your 10th enemy within 5 seconds will give you a +20 health drop, or surviving a match without getting hit will restore 10% of your max health. It affects how the player should play the game to maximize effectiveness, and rewards good technique. It encourages players to do better, but players who don't play good, might get some advange some of the time.
So it's just down to deciding what sort of way to keep your players alive through your hell.
Cut, paste, submit...

Back to top |

Display posts from previous:

| Inside3d Forums Forum Index -> Gameplay & Design | All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2004 phpBB Group