Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
taroskin

Ace, Are you back pedalling on Healing?

Recommended Posts

From a strategic point of view, having the Legio have a heal is a good idea.  It needs to be toned down, but if you need spot healing during a critical part of your battle then what better vehicle to have it on than the fastest archetype in the game?  Along with their various other buffs/debuffs.

 

I think a lot of people have got this firm idea of how Crowfall should be for them and have real problems with taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.

 

Also, I would like someone to explain to me precisely how having a "healer" (using quotation marks because even at the moment, we don't know how much or what kind of healing the Druid is going to be doing) is "lower strategy"?  If you get rid of the "healer" all that will happen is that you'll replace them with the next highest target of opportunity which at the moment is liable to be the Confessor.

Edited by NostrusUK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, things like the currently hotly debated AoE damage adjustment are probably not something backers have significant influence over and are likely not worth discussing.  Food for thought...

 

These topics are all worth discussing. They just aren't worth raging about.

 

Our feedback is useful to them. That doesn't mean you should get your hopes up that your opinions will make a significant impact on the direction ACE takes. There are lots of backers and we give lots of feedback. It is up to ACE to sift through it and make their own decisions.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a strategic point of view, having the Legio have a heal is a good idea. It needs to be toned down, but if you need spot healing during a critical part of your battle then what better vehicle to have it on than the fastest archetype in the game? Along with their various other buffs/debuffs.

 

I think a lot of people have got this firm idea of how Crowfall should be for them and have real problems with taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.

 

Also, I would like someone to explain to me precisely how having a "healer" (using quotation marks because even at the moment, we don't know how much or what kind of healing the Druid is going to be doing) is "lower strategy"? If you get rid of the "healer" all that will happen is that you'll replace them with the next highest target of opportunity which at the moment is liable to be the Confessor.

"Healing", is lower "skill"... because it's a reflexory action you take after the damage is received. In comparison to protective actions which have to predict when the damage will be received and apply a brief save, or obstructions which have to be intelligently arranged, or avoidance which has to measure the reach and delivery of an offense, healing is the least difficult to utilize.

 

Something like an impassable hedge recovers and blocks no damage, but effectively placed can prevent melee offenders from even reaching allies and stop tons of aggression. But hey, who wants strategy?


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a strategic point of view, having the Legio have a heal is a good idea.  It needs to be toned down, but if you need spot healing during a critical part of your battle then what better vehicle to have it on than the fastest archetype in the game?  Along with their various other buffs/debuffs.

 

I think a lot of people have got this firm idea of how Crowfall should be for them and have real problems with taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture.

 

Also, I would like someone to explain to me precisely how having a "healer" (using quotation marks because even at the moment, we don't know how much or what kind of healing the Druid is going to be doing) is "lower strategy"?  If you get rid of the "healer" all that will happen is that you'll replace them with the next highest target of opportunity which at the moment is liable to be the Confessor.

As others have posted better than I can healing doesn't in fact lower strategy. In fact it can be argued that not have healing and taking away roles is what reduces strategy. The less things that have to be managed, dealt with and used during the course of combat the less tactical it becomes. Now there's of course a point of diminishing returns in that simply adding a bunch of stuff doesn't make it even more strategy based but again the more varying ways, options and tools we have to deal, mitigate and replace damage the better, IMO.

 

But yeah its a valid point to make that removing the healer doesn't make it better, it simply redresses the role into something else when the truth is some just really have a semantics issue with the term "healer" and/or "support".

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Healing", is lower "skill"... because it's a reflexory action you take after the damage is received.

 

In your opinion. Using this line of logic, anything that is "reflexory"  can be "low skill". I doubt anyone who's played gw1 at a reasonable level in GvG would tell you that healing in that game was "low skill". A good monk would literally make or break your team. Preventative abilities like guardian, reversal of fortune and protective spirit were FAR easier to use than something like Infuse Health, which sacrificed your health and was a "reflexory" ability. So sure, preventing damage is as important as responding to it, but in CF you're not going to avoid every projectile throw at you or every melee attack swung at you. The defensive options simply don't exist yet.

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Healing", is lower "skill"... because it's a reflexory action you take after the damage is received. In comparison to protective actions which have to predict when the damage will be received and apply a brief save, or obstructions which have to be intelligently arranged, or avoidance which has to measure the reach and delivery of an offense, healing is the least difficult to utilize.

 

Something like an impassable hedge recovers and blocks no damage, but effectively placed can prevent melee offenders from even reaching allies and stop tons of aggression. But hey, who wants strategy?

 

It makes sense to me, there are so many possibilities with protective actions as opposed to simply healing. Healing would basically mean that the consequences (the damage received) of our mistakes, whether it's positioning, tactics, execution, etc., get removed by returning the HP lost. So I guess that it would indeed reduce the impact of skills, since even if a player makes a series of bad decisions and plays, he can in theory still survive if there's enough healing to compensate for the damage taken.

 

While protective powers require the player to time it properly, decide which protection is the most effective to use in what circumstance, which shield counters what type of damage, etc.

 

I hope that ACE will stick to their initial idea and implement rich and varied "key buffs, debuffs, and physics related powers" to keep the game "purposefully light on in-combat healing, to make it more deadly"

Edited by courant101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need a refund because you can't do addition?

 

No, so you can stop embarrassing yourself over and over again. You don't like this game, you just need to admit it. What you want and the developers want are completely different. You're playing yourself, quite literally. 

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't even form a coherent analysis of the subject helix, but since you need practice, try to factor the difference in TTK, team arrangement and targeting variation between GW and CF.

 

If your unable to calculate the extreme dissociation between healing and protection still, it's because your still attempting to attach optional dilemmas which are not required or restricted to healing.

 

Meanwhile, I'll be over here having rational observations which are clearly unattainable by the likes of you.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't even form a coherent analysis of the subject helix, but since you need practice, try to factor the difference in TTK, team arrangement and targeting variation between GW and CF.

 

If your unable to calculate the extreme dissociation between healing and protection still, it's because your still attempting to attach optional dilemmas which are not required or restricted to healing.

 

Meanwhile, I'll be over here having rational observations which are clearly unattainable by the likes of you.

 

I bet you don't act as pretentious in real life as you do on this forum. Anonymity does wonders. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These topics are all worth discussing. They just aren't worth raging about.

 

Our feedback is useful to them. That doesn't mean you should get your hopes up that your opinions will make a significant impact on the direction ACE takes. There are lots of backers and we give lots of feedback. It is up to ACE to sift through it and make their own decisions.

 

There are good reasons to discuss a CF related topic, such as it being of interest to you or simply to wax philosophical about gaming.  In addition, as I have previously stated, backers should have every right to express their delight or disdain about different design elements ACE puts in the game if that is what they would like to do.  However, I don't think we should suffer delusions about just how "useful" that is to ACE.  

 

First, ACE is a development team made up of folks with a lot of experience in the gaming industry.  It would seem apparent that there is very little we have thought of that they have not already considered (in terms of design).  They, in the process of development, presumably purposely leave out even very good ideas if it does not fit with their overall goals or if it is not manageable in terms of resources.  If that is going on, and it is difficult to imagine that it is not, then to what extent do you think our concerns/suggestions about the path they are taking will make a difference?  Not only that, but if we do come up with an idea that an ACE dev has publicly stated that they liked, it usually sounds like this, "I really like that idea.  Perhaps after launch..."  Essentially, they have a path set out already and have been and are currently developing the game in such a way that leaves little to no margin for significant impact (as you state) via suggestions and concerns from backers.  A very slight impact is potentially possible because resources would conceivably allow for that, but it would not be of any significance. 

 

This being stated, I do not doubt that ACE does read the forums and considers what we say.  However, I do not think that it has much to any impact at the conceptual level.  It is true they do want our feedback especially when testing the game.  That data is essential to making sure the game works.  Although, I think some testers grossly overestimate their influence there as well.  Suggestions, as I stated before, could potentially be useful to them, but even that lessens as we get closer to launch.   To sum up, a change of any significant difference as suggested by backers to a system already announced is extremely unlikely.         

 

EDIT:  Let me hasten to add that is the case unless they have specifically asked for feedback on something, like combat. 

Edited by Regulus

The Artist Formerly Known as Regulus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you don't act as pretentious in real life as you do on this forum. Anonymity does wonders. :D

I know I don't have to tolerate indignant evasions, red herrings, and straw men in real life, making it easy to avoid proving my love for logic over life.

 

The only Anonymity your enjoying is Pann reminding me not to hurt your feelings. *Yawn


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't even form a coherent analysis of the subject helix, but since you need practice, try to factor the difference in TTK, team arrangement and targeting variation between GW and CF.

 

If your unable to calculate the extreme dissociation between healing and protection still, it's because your still attempting to attach optional dilemmas which are not required or restricted to healing.

 

Meanwhile, I'll be over here having rational observations which are clearly unattainable by the likes of you.

 

A healer who does not  learn when to expect damage and how to preemptively cast a heal is not a very good healer. Or preemptively do any number of other things like debuff that massive power boost that mage just cast on himself so his attempt to obliterate you to pieces is not successful, or defensively CC that melee dps about to pummel her squishy archers, etc. A good PvP healer knows what's coming and how to react to that. They are paying attention to every detail of the fight and the battlefield because if they don't, poorly made socks starts hitting the fan, fast (assuming an equally skilled opponent). Making heals into shields is not going to change anything, it's just making it less fun for healers - it's like removing all your fun burst skills and giving you a bunch of DoTs in terms of fun-factor. It's just boring. At least with heals I feel like I'm actually doing something.

Edited by Leiloni

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those straw men keep coming up, but I don't know why anyone thinks they work vs hell fire :-/
 
Healing doesn't have to go away, it has to be limited in combat and replaced with alternative support actions the way ACE identified their game.
 

But we made the game purposefully light on in-combat healing, to make it more deadly.
 
 It makes less sense in a game focused on skill-based player-versus-player combat.
 
Our intent is for the support archetypes to have key buffs, debuffs, and physics related powers

 
I'm getting tired of defending the claims ACE collected "donations" against. I'm not asking for what was offered, I'm reminding them of their obligation.
 
Protection spells and physics based actions are flatly more challenging than healing, every scenario you try to construct around healing challenges are not exclusive to healing, and is often harder, or impossible when applied to intercepting damage.
 
When coupled with the REALITY of higher TTK, the claim that there will be less available in combat healing, and separated from all the attachments defenders try to couple healing with to make it sound more difficult, and there is absolutely no ground to stand on. You can't have a hard time healing an ally in time when they aren't going to suddenly die, you can't have a hard time maintaining their health efficiently when you have low combat healing, you can't survive on healing centric supports if they honor their claims that occupy 33% of their original combat FAQ.
 
Now, what they can do is LIE. They can ship healing into one of those flexible categories where things change during development even though they made ample claims about it during their marketing pitch. https://crowfall.com/en/faq/combat/
 
Or they can use the very obvious, simple, superior, and more challenging mechanisms pioneered by several games already to fulfill their claims.
 
It's really just math, ppl don't really understand math when it doesn't involve numbers, but when you have a bunch of positive and negative statements, understanding the solution is as simple as checking it against the equation.
 
You know what's harder than preparing to heal right after an attack?, placing a protection before an attack, you know whats harder than admitting that CC, debuffs, and any other action a support character takes beside healing is not applicable to the difficulty of healing?, admitting that any other action than healing is what I'm advertising, and what your confusing. Healing, not "healers", Supports, not limited to or required to heal, math, be more accurate.

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really just math, ppl don't really understand math when it doesn't involve numbers, but when you have a bunch of positive and negative statements, understanding the solution is as simple as checking it against the equation.

 

I'm considering using this as a signature, just too funny. We got a regular arm chair developer / video game philosopher over here.

 

 

 

I'm getting tired of defending the claims ACE collected "donations" against. I'm not asking for what was offered, I'm reminding them of their obligation.

 

The only obligation they have is to deliver us a game, it doesn't even need to be a good game (although I hope it is). What they offered us was a bundle of ideas, and ideas change. One day the legionnaire was a melee dps, the next a support because the situation demanded it.They wanted server side movement and were anti orbital combat. Now we can move in all cardinal directions, the camera doesn't function like ass and the knight / champion can move and attack. Expect more changes small and large throughout pre-alpha and alpha. Beta is when the cement starts to dry.

 

 

 

Protection spells and physics based actions are flatly more challenging than healing, every scenario you try to construct around healing challenges are not exclusive to healing, and is often harder, or impossible when applied to intercepting damage.

 

You keep saying this, but in practically every game I played, this wasn't the case. GW1 is the best example because they had an abundance of protection skills, a lot of them were low to medium skill like protective spirit. If you see a spike coming, throw prot on and bury it with reversal, guardian and anything else you can so they can't shatter it. Spells like guardian, aegis, ward against melee and blinding flash were extremely brain dead simple to use and gave you ridiculous amounts of protection. GW1 had long stretches in the meta where defense ball was ridiculous strong, and it mostly consisted of low brain power abilities.

 

In ESO defensive spells like Barrier (which gave you a health buffer based on your maximum health) and warhorn (which gave you more health, thus increasing your barrier effectively) were brain dead simple to use. Don't get me started with guild wars 2 and wildstars.

 

Now if you're talking about stepping in front of your ally and taking shots, this already happens. If you're talking about using the terrain to your advantage, this is applicable in just about every game I've played. If you're talking about abilities that can construct walls and deform terrain, that would be nice to have, but I doubt they'll do it. Either way, you can have all of that stuff AND have healing, and in fact we will (with the druid). Healing and Protection play styles don't replace one another, they accommodate each other.

 

 

 

When coupled with the REALITY of higher TTK, the claim that there will be less available in combat healing, and separated from all the attachments defenders try to couple healing with to make it sound more difficult, and there is absolutely no ground to stand on. You can't have a hard time healing an ally in time when they aren't going to suddenly die, you can't have a hard time maintaining their health efficiently when you have low combat healing, you can't survive on healing centric supports if they honor their claims that occupy 33% of their original combat FAQ.

 

 

This is the most convoluted clump of text I've read in awhile. I'll just pass this off as you were having an aneurysm of some sort while writing. Please read this out loud to yourself, and then come back and refactor it. My only response to that jumbled mess is that healing is only as hard as your opponents make it. If you're under constant pressure, trying to keep yourself and others alive can be a real nightmare. While most protective abilities I've encountered in games were quite passive and forgettable.

 

 

 

Or they can use the very obvious, simple, superior, and more challenging mechanisms pioneered by several games already to fulfill their claims.

I'm really curious as to what these games are. Don't give me the nonsensical "google it" answer. I want a list with these high skill, state of the art, MLG420noscopeballbustingrevolutionary design games you keep talking about.

 

 

You know what's harder than preparing to heal right after an attack?, placing a protection before an attack, you know whats harder than admitting that CC, debuffs, and any other action a support character takes beside healing is not applicable to the difficulty of healing?, admitting that any other action than healing is what I'm advertising, and what your confusing. Healing, not "healers", Supports, not limited to or required to heal, math, be more accurate.

 

 

Another jumbled mess. Why can't reactive (healing) and proactive (prevention) support abilities and game play exist? I don't see it as one or the other, this isn't a zero sum scenario. 

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glossing over the obvious dislike that bahamutkaiser and helix have for one another, I'd like to discuss your reply to my question, bahamut.

 

If "healing is lower skill" due to it being reactive (although you could argue the toss in games that permit overhealing) then that must mean that all reactive skills and abilities are similarly lower skill.  For example, where do you rate interrupts?  They are, by definition, a reactive event.

 

I'm not picking a fight here, by the way, merely trying to understand your mind set.

 

I'll put out my own stall here.  I do not like "fire hose" healing.  As an example, a healer should not be able to out-last a damage dealer by simply healing through their damage.  To me, that is a sign that the system is broken.  However, I strongly disagree that it is lower skill/strategy.  Indeed, I believe that, if handled correctly, it adds to the overall strategy involved in the game.  It means that, as a squad leader, I need to plan and deal with said healer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glossing over the obvious dislike that bahamutkaiser and helix have for one another, I'd like to discuss your reply to my question, bahamut..

I actually have no animosity directed towards an Internet stranger who I've never met, I just like pointing out his ridiculous statements/arguments and dismantling them.

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time seeing where a protection spell is more skillful. Most Protection type spells have a duration so, whats to stop the caster of said protection spell to just throw it on the most likely target during the engagement phase and then reapplying on CD, switch target when needed. Maybe I'm missing something you guys are trying to suggest by that version of a protection spell is mind numbing and not skillful in the slightest of forms. I guess if it had an incredibly short duration I could see the challenge. 

 

As for healing, everything is being placed on the "healers" shoulders in this discussion, what about the numerous other factors? Why is that support free healing to begin with? Sounds like the opposition isn't skillful enough t`o interupt/lock down. Anyone can make silly arguments when they neglect the plethora of other variables. I just gave one example of how healing shouldn't be as easy as some are making it out, and if it is ... that's on the enemy not the support.

 

With that said, What I wouldn't mind seeing is a HoT system, HoT's usually don't pack the spike healing needed to save someone from certain death, however, when applied sooner rather then later it can be very effective just as if it's applied later rather then sooner it's usually a wasted spell that someone else could have used. 

 

I am interested in hearing more on your folks thought on the protective spells, what types of protective spells, why do you see them as more skillful.

Edited by Apok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...