Please get rid of hitpoints.

[Keemo]

Hit points are too unrealistic. How about locational damage where you get varying degrees of wounds at places of your body. Those hurt places would be slowed. If your arm is hurt you swing slower, leg hurt you move slower, head hurt the screen is a little blurry or something like that. When you get too many wounds massed up you die, especially if they are on your torso or head. Toughness skills could be converted to allowing you to take more wounds rather than giving more hitpoints. I hate knowing exactly when I will die by hitpoints, it just feels fake. Thanks for reading. (hitpoints may still infant be calculated in the background but don't let me see them, it ruins the illusion of reality)

(may have already been suggested a 100 times before, I didn't read all posts sorry.)

 

[svart]

Something like that ?
http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=4069

 

[Can O Soup]

i don't know man. maybe make this an option that youy can turn on and off, but you would still after a few days probably know exactly when you're going to die, because the degrees of the color would tell you.

 

[Manitas]

Yeah, I hate hitpoints too, though some sort of numerical vitality representation is unavoidable.

First, in curent game systems hp loss does not affect combat capabilities. I'd rather see that if i smash a guy several times in his head it will yield some sort of effect on him.

Second, in reality damage does not sum up, that means if i hit 2 times that does not equal one 2x stronger hit. Games use linear equations for that, so things like killing a tank with a knife or stonning full plated knight to death are possible with some patience.

But unfortunately, most people seem to accept hp's as they are, so chances of getting rid of them are small.

 

[Flan Man]

There could just be an option to hide the HP display on your HUD. This would allow people to take away some of the "countdown" nature of combat without actually having to change the game dynamics. This wouldn't necessarily add realism to the game, but it would give a better option for people who really don't like seing that "HP:30" display on their screen.

 

[okiN]

Flan man, I dunno, you should still have some general idea about how badly you've been hurt. I mean, if you were hit three times for zero damage and three times for ten damage, you should be able to distinguish between how you'd be feeling afterwards.

 

[Ares]

I really like the leg/arm/head injuries idea, one of the game's strongpoints is realism. So adding a limp or slower swing time, inability to aim properly, heh even make half the screen go blank if you lose an eye would be a major plus, and make the game even more unique than it it already is.

 

[Garth]

The thing is, if you lose an eye, that doesn't regenerate. You get your head bashed in, your brain doesn't regenerate. You get stabbed in general, that takes a few weeks or months (or maybe even years?) to get back to some sort of fighting condition.

There's a degree of realism you have to sacrifice for practicality. If every injury effected your performance as it should in real life, then it would be a war of gimps as it's so much easier to harm an enemy in M&B than it is in real life, and there are much few soldiers on the battlefield than there would be in a real battle.

Though I do think there should be a total hit point pool, a seperate hit point pool for individual limbs, a penalty to those limbs whose hitpoints run out when you still have overall hitpoints left, and the option to hide your hitpoints from the HUD (maybe at the replacement of a green-yello-red indicator kind of thing for seperate body parts).

Options. Always think options.

 

[Flaming Eyes]

Garth is right, if you loose an arm, and survive (think in that time), you will need a protesis, and it will be very probably that you will never fight again.

By the way, I like to see the numbers...
But if Mr. Armagan add a "god mode" cheat I will not be against a collor helth use...

 

[Sir Prince]

In Call of Duty you can kill tanks with anti-tank weapons only, and maybe you can blow em up somewhere I don't know as I only have the demos so far. Though I saw two of my fellows climb up on one and open the hatch and fire and throw a grenade insine and it blew up.

 

[J.A.R.S.]

hitpoints are necessary, otherwise you spread yourself... cause you would have to calculate potential limb cutting, and what happends then? you need to calculate bleeding, and how do you restore a broken arm? you need an hospital and magic to regrow your arms... otherwise, you'd be a plastic doll with everliving arms but that can yet hurt independently from the body. I prefer to see it the way it is right now, really.

EDIT : with 0.700 however (fixed in 0.701) it was unecessary to debate. 1 arrow would probably do instant kill on you even if it was kilometers away... damn archers in 0.700, they made me feel like **** EVEN witha shield, but that' sout fo topic...

 

[CurryMutton]

Realism vs. playability. It is a forever debate, not just in Mount&Blade.

I would love to see this feature in other fantasy/sci-fi based RPG, but not here, with reasons explained very clearly above.

As a matter of fact, very few CRPG implements this idea. One reason I would think of is playabliity issue. It can be very frustrating for players to find his character suddenly incapacitated (sp?) when one of the legs gets removed or killed instantly when a strike lands on critical position such as heart or neck.

 

[Big J Money]

I agree with Curry. It could be done very well in the right game, but M&B would have to change too much for it to be enjoyable to me. Nice try, though. It's a great idea, in theory.

=$= Big J Money =$=

 

[Skyrage]

An icon representing your body and bodyparts that change color depending on damage would be able to replace a HP indicator perfectly fine and yet not tell the player exactly how much you have left. Just an estimate. Maybe let first aid skill etc give more detailed info as you become better at it? And rename first aid (or wound treatment, whichever skill fits in more) to "medical".

 

[Manitas]

Realism vs. playability. It is a forever debate, not just in Mount&Blade.

That's what they say, but that's just false. There's no conflict between realism and playability. However, there is a conflict between realistic and unrealistic features mixed together, that affect playability.

Let's say, you got realistic injury system and AI, and then the scenario throws you alone with a handgun into endless corridors full of marines and monsters.

I think in M&B non-hero characters could be affected by realistic injury system without any negative impact on playability. The hero however could be preserved from any form of permanent damage, to avoid save&load play style.

 

[Worbah]

Flan man, I dunno, you should still have some general idea about how badly you've been hurt. I mean, if you were hit three times for zero damage and three times for ten damage, you should be able to distinguish between how you'd be feeling afterwards.

Okin, yous hould read this exciting article about realistic damage: http://panssarivau.nu/mtkp/kolumni05.html



Check out the rest of the site, if you haven't already:
http://panssarivau.nu/index.html

 

[Ancientwanker]

Slightly off topic but Ive been saying there should be a "major wound" system for the heroes. As it is there is no real penalty for losing a battle when you only have heroes with you. Just some denars and maybe an item or two.

If heroes had a chance of getting a major wound after a loss it would add some extra sting or penalty to the loss. Nothing permanent, just a concussion tag or a broken ribs tag that would show on the character sheet and result in slowed movement or attack speeds or reduced skills until it healed.

 

[Skanky Burns]

That's what they say, but that's just false. There's no conflict between realism and playability. However, there is a conflict between realistic and unrealistic features mixed together, that affect playability.

I'd be interested to see how you managed to come to that conclusion. There is always a trade-off between realism and playability. Off the top of my head: What would realistically happen to someone who's army was just defeated in battle? They would either be killed or captured and sold to a slaver. Realistic, but not fun, so playability won out in this situation.

 

[Luthius]

It's bad enough that your freshly purchased hulking bastard of a spirited charger gets crippled on its first trip outside it's previously cosy stable, but then finding out that you've now got to do battle from a wheelchair cos your legs are lying loose under your horse, and you can't get them out to put them on ice cos it's too damn heavy. And Borcha forgot the ice! And the only doctor that could sow them back on is in Sargoth. And don't get me started on the disabled facilities in Sargoth...

 

[Manitas]

Off the top of my head: What would realistically happen to someone who's army was just defeated in battle? They would either be killed or captured and sold to a slaver. Realistic, but not fun, so playability won out in this situation.

What would happen to him? He would fail.

What's so fun about most of today's games, if the chance of success is 100%?
As soon as players discover all the features, they quit of boredom, and move on to another title. There are craploads of games these days.

Some prefer having a chance of failure, too bad they are seldom targeted by gaming industry.