Preventive Medicine perk is broken and nearly acts like a cheat heal.

Currently viewing this thread:

Berzerker Jay

Does it matter?

If you fight them, the odds of the AI engaging in follow-up fights with the player is basically zero. Probably 97% of the time they get beaten and captured, so their health percentage is irrelevant. In the rare case they win, the AI takes the player captive and their status doesn't matter. AI-led armies rarely chain battles together. They essentially never do so while the player is serving in them (autocalc allows the occasional escape, but in missions two armies fight to destruction) so you're hard-pressed to see if any individual lord is on the field or not. Finally, whether they are up or not isn't particularly noticeable or decisive for any reason. The bonuses they grant are haphazard at best (party leaders don't lead formations unless in an army + random perk selection + random selection of formation to lead) and even if the stars aligned to get a great infantry captain actually leading the infantry formation, odds are they will go down in the first two minutes due to being mounted.

It is the sort of thing you'd only notice if you were in cheat mode and stalking a certain lord via the dev console.
I guess I don't need to worry about it in that way. But I do need to worry about it in terms of pursuing a wounded lord who chances on battles along the way. Same for responding to a siege -- there are usually battles following these.

I can provide a lot of reasons why this perk is unbalancing garbage to the gameplay. The only reason I hear to go ahead and heap the garbage on the gameplay is that some people have whined about their risky playing behaviour that they haven't practiced their playing skills to match is resulting in them being wounded, and not able to fight until healing to 20%. A simple fix for this is to hire a skilled companion to play medic.

What a horrible game-design philosophy, to even take up the space of a perk with basic nerf garbage like this to accommodate those who don't want to learn to play. :razz:
 

Apocal

Master Knight
What a horrible game-design philosophy, to even take up the space of a perk with basic nerf garbage like this to accommodate those who don't want to learn to play.
It isn't really a skill thing; I'm not very good mechanically at combat in BL but the "too wounded to fight" feature never bothers me because I rarely get knocked out in battle. The risk is entirely mitigable if you don't really care for your score in the end. But for people who play BL to dive headfirst into battles and utilize their personal skill, that feature exists primarily to punish them for it. You can easily get chipped down below 20% health, after all, it doesn't say much against your skill if you sit at 15% health with like 30 kills with your axe on foot.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
: ) Plus considering how many medicine perks you'll get with the way it levels they might as well make the few that are actually obtainable awesome to make up for all the others that will never be achieved.
Yeah I'm glad it's front loaded! The first 1/2 of the perks are all pretty great, then it gets into the Clan Gynecologist tier weird perks....
The final perks and the skill effect are very powerful though, if you mod or use cheat to actually be able to level medicine....
 

Berzerker Jay

It isn't really a skill thing; I'm not very good mechanically at combat in BL but the "too wounded to fight" feature never bothers me because I rarely get knocked out in battle. The risk is entirely mitigable if you don't really care for your score in the end. But for people who play BL to dive headfirst into battles and utilize their personal skill, that feature exists primarily to punish them for it. You can easily get chipped down below 20% health, after all, it doesn't say much against your skill if you sit at 15% health with like 30 kills with your axe on foot.
That's what I mean about horrible game development philosophy, though. It really isn't a need, except as compensation for not learning the game.

Note by my name that I probably tend toward a playing style that more fits your second type, only I've learned to play the game and to do so with skill, and I take my chops when I'm dealt them. I still rarely have to actually sit a fight out. This perk has a game-shattering level of balance. I might as well get it and then just be an unresting spirit of destruction. If my health gets low I'll just attack a party of six looters and then go lay siege to a castle. :razz:
 
That's what I mean about horrible game development philosophy, though. It really isn't a need, except as compensation for not learning the game.

Note by my name that I probably tend toward a playing style that more fits your second type, only I've learned to play the game and to do so with skill, and I take my chops when I'm dealt them. I still rarely have to actually sit a fight out. This perk has a game-shattering level of balance. I might as well get it and then just be an unresting spirit of destruction. If my health gets low I'll just attack a party of six looters and then go lay siege to a castle. :razz:
This is more or less my view on the matter too.

If the game is too hard then use an easier difficulty level! It doesn't make sense to build what are effectively 'cheats' into the game to make it easier for the few people who want to be invincible in battle. (Again, this is what the easier difficulty levels are supposed to be for).
 

Berzerker Jay

Totally, especially when the player has console commands to nerf the game themselves, if they want that so bad.
 
This is more or less my view on the matter too.

If the game is too hard then use an easier difficulty level! It doesn't make sense to build what are effectively 'cheats' into the game to make it easier for the few people who want to be invincible in battle. (Again, this is what the easier difficulty levels are supposed to be for).
Wait a second, that implies you use medicine? No AI lord got medicine (at least not at a relevant level). That´s basicly cheating. Are you really that bad? What´s next? Using companions? Unbelievable.
Oh. and just in case you don´t know what i´m talking about: Do not tell people how they have to play. It´s pointless and just makes you look like.. something that looks like a phallus.
Complain at TW (like you did) or just don´t pick that perk (easiest sollution)
 
Wait a second, that implies you use medicine? No AI lord got medicine (at least not at a relevant level). That´s basicly cheating. Are you really that bad? What´s next? Using companions? Unbelievable.
Oh. and just in case you don´t know what i´m talking about: Do not tell people how they have to play. It´s pointless and just makes you look like.. something that looks like a phallus.
Complain at TW (like you did) or just don´t pick that perk (easiest sollution)
Firstly: I genuinely thought they had made a mistake with that perk because that is not how it works in Warband. (This was originally posted in bug reporting)

Secondly: I'm not telling anyone else how to play. Simply stating that it makes no sense to make the core game easier through these design choices because once that is done it forces those who want a more difficult experience to miss out on that game play option.

So two things:

If people want to play it a really easy way that is fine. As I have said multiple times.
If you choose the hardest difficulty on every setting and then complain that it is too hard to play the way you want to... then put it on an easier setting.

The problem is that putting everything to the hardest difficulty right now is still too easy and that is due to the perks being too overpowered. (But playing without perks removes a core gameplay element, so that's no fun either).

Second thing is: These perks are acting like fantasy-elements. So if you enjoyed this game for being more immersive/realistic then you have also lost a core reason to play the game. Which sucks.. But if that is the way TW wants the game to go in, then that is fine. Will just have to wait for mods on that front.
 
Last edited:

Because

Sergeant
Firstly: I genuinely thought they had made a mistake with that perk because that is not how it works in Warband. (This was originally posted in bug reporting)

Secondly: I'm not telling anyone else how to play. Simply stating that it makes no sense to make the core game easier through these design choices because once that is done it forces those who want a more difficult experience to miss out on that game play option.

So two things:

If people want to play it a really easy way that is fine. As I have said multiple times.
If you choose the hardest difficulty on every setting and then complain that it is too hard to play the way you want to... then put it on an easier setting.

The problem is that putting everything to the hardest difficulty right now is still too easy and that is due to the perks being too overpowered. (But playing without perks removes a core gameplay element, so that's no fun either).

Second thing is: These perks are acting like fantasy-elements. So if you enjoyed this game for being more immersive/realistic then you have also lost a core reason to play the game. Which sucks.. But if that is the way TW wants the game to go in, then that is fine. Will just have to wait for mods on that front.
Why not just take the other perk though? I get you don't like it and why, but if it destroys your game so much why pick it. There are so many perks that have bigger game effects than others, do they all need nerfing so that those who want a harder game play don't have the option of choosing a perk that makes things easier for themselves?
That said if it restored 30% of damaged lost in an encounter and worked on bandit camps and other situations I'd be happy with it. Considering how bad your army is without you being there to command it I like the ability to reliably be able to lead my army for two battles in a row, so think it would be a very bad thing to remove it.
 
Why not just take the other perk though? I get you don't like it and why, but if it destroys your game so much why pick it. There are so many perks that have bigger game effects than others, do they all need nerfing so that those who want a harder game play don't have the option of choosing a perk that makes things easier for themselves?
I haven't tried the other perk yet. I will choose it next time.

This thread was originally a bug report - It got moved to discussion by the forum mods (once it was confirmed that it was a feature, not a bug). So this discussion has gone completely beyond the purpose of this initial thread lol.
That said if it restored 30% of damaged lost in an encounter and worked on bandit camps and other situations I'd be happy with it. Considering how bad your army is without you being there to command it I like the ability to reliably be able to lead my army for two battles in a row, so think it would be a very bad thing to remove it.
This is what I thought the intention was (and how it worked in Warband) - Hence why I reported it as a bug. - It is a good balance between punishing you for being careless in battle but also allowing you to be careless in battle a few times before being completely knocked out.

The leveling system in Warband also worked different in that it would start of healing, say, 5% and then would progressively get better as you leveled the skill. - It felt more progressive. Like you were actually getting better as you practiced the skill instead of just jumping immediately to 30%.

And also, you hit another side-point: The AI is bad at attacking without you: The solution should be to allow you to command without being on the battlefield, or maybe play as one of your companions, or improve the AI so that their wins/loses make sense... Making perks overpowered to fix other elements of the game that are lacking isn't a great choice.
 

Berzerker Jay

To the argument that we should just take the other perk -- what's wrong with wanting the option to have a reasonable perk on other side, especially since many of us play this game especially for its replayability?

How much fun do you think it is to play the game avoiding mechanics like this? How immersive?

Why can't you just turn down the difficulty level? I don't get that part, like is it a pride thing?
 

Berzerker Jay

One side has the option of decreasing difficulty level, while the other side is expected to consider it reasonable that they just settle for one perk because the other is ridiculous and magically and unbalanced. :razz:
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Why can't you just turn down the difficulty level? I don't get that part, like is it a pride thing?
From what I hear, it barely helps at all with getting KO'd too easily. I've never tried because I know how to 'move my character to a place it won't get hit or shot'. It's a very nice perk and was surprised they added it. I had originally complained that there was no 1st aid type effect. This perks is about the same as 6 1st aid skill in warband however only heals the possessor and triggers even if KO'd. Of course, if you don't take enough damage, it's just another dead perk in the **** pile.
 

Berzerker Jay

From what I hear, it barely helps at all with getting KO'd too easily. I've never tried because I know how to 'move my character to a place it won't get hit or shot'. It's a very nice perk and was surprised they added it. I had originally complained that there was no 1st aid type effect. This perks is about the same as 6 1st aid skill in warband however only heals the possessor and triggers even if KO'd. Of course, if you don't take enough damage, it's just another dead perk in the **** pile.
It's magical healing, in a game that isn't about magic. It's really off-putting.

You seriously can't just try being reasonable and turning down your difficulty settings, and instead argue that the entire game should be made less difficult because you won't even try that?

I'd say if your, "move my character to a place it won't get hit or shot" strategy is working out for you well enough that you can't be bothered to try any of the alternative difficulty settings, maybe you don't have the problem you think you do, and maybe the solution isn't to start having magical healing perks that work irrationally like as though you are some battle-vampire that draws power from just being on a battlefield. Or maybe a necromancer.

I want a perk that lets me shoot fireballs then. **** it. :razz:
 

Because

Sergeant
To the argument that we should just take the other perk -- what's wrong with wanting the option to have a reasonable perk on other side, especially since many of us play this game especially for its replayability?

How much fun do you think it is to play the game avoiding mechanics like this? How immersive?

Why can't you just turn down the difficulty level? I don't get that part, like is it a pride thing?
I get that you think it's too powerful, but really I like the idea of something that lets you go back to the old warband system where you could recover health for a hero after a battle, it was one of the things that made heroes feel just that. That it was added shows that TW at least think it's a valid playstyle option.

Perhaps more importantly though how many perks have an effect that you actually notice, that add a mechanic to the game rather than a small % increase to something? I'm against removing anything that changes how you play the game as l like having meaningful choices rather than another what do I add a 5% increase to choice. Especially as it is only 1 perk and I don't see people complaining about all the bland perks that they will never take as they are pointless (surely there are a lot more of those so don't they impact you replayability much more that this one perk). Still always when you get a perk that has a real effect on the game, people who don't have to choose it always seem to request it's removal. Sorry if this all seems a bit ranty just one of those things that grates with me.

Lastly about the pride thing, the great thing about this perk isn't that you take less damage (as you don't in the actual battle) it's a perk that lets you command a battle after an unlucky hit takes you out/injures you badly and leaves you with a less than desirable AI to lead your army. I never use auto calc and start with a new character if I ever get captured and I hate the thought of having to watch my army give up any semblance of a plan and charge headlong at the enemy because I took a hit in the last battle and can no longer tell them what to so. In a battle where I get taken out fair enough, but in one where I get knocked below 20% but am able to still carry on fighting only to be no longer able to tell them what to do in the next battle that just sucks. I'd be just as happy with a perk that let the player take the field with a health of 1, as it is that ability to stay in charge is why the perk is cool not the getting health back, it's just it functions as health restorative to get round the 20% rule. The reason I'd like them to keep the health restorative bit is for companions as now that they can die they need all the help they can get and fielding them at 1% would be suicidal and so the perk tweak I suggested above would be worse for them, at least currently it will give them a chance at taking a hit.
 

Berzerker Jay

I get that you think it's too powerful, but really I like the idea of something that lets you go back to the old warband system where you could recover health for a hero after a battle, it was one of the things that made heroes feel just that. That it was added shows that TW at least think it's a valid playstyle option.

Perhaps more importantly though how many perks have an effect that you actually notice, that add a mechanic to the game rather than a small % increase to something? I'm against removing anything that changes how you play the game as l like having meaningful choices rather than another what do I add a 5% increase to choice. Especially as it is only 1 perk and I don't see people complaining about all the bland perks that they will never take as they are pointless (surely there are a lot more of those so don't they impact you replayability much more that this one perk). Still always when you get a perk that has a real effect on the game, people who don't have to choose it always seem to request it's removal. Sorry if this all seems a bit ranty just one of those things that grates with me.

Lastly about the pride thing, the great thing about this perk isn't that you take less damage (as you don't in the actual battle) it's a perk that lets you command a battle after an unlucky hit takes you out/injures you badly and leaves you with a less than desirable AI to lead your army. I never use auto calc and start with a new character if I ever get captured and I hate the thought of having to watch my army give up any semblance of a plan and charge headlong at the enemy because I took a hit in the last battle and can no longer tell them what to so. In a battle where I get taken out fair enough, but in one where I get knocked below 20% but am able to still carry on fighting only to be no longer able to tell them what to do in the next battle that just sucks. I'd be just as happy with a perk that let the player take the field with a health of 1, as it is that ability to stay in charge is why the perk is cool not the getting health back, it's just it functions as health restorative to get round the 20% rule. The reason I'd like them to keep the health restorative bit is for companions as now that they can die they need all the help they can get and fielding them at 1% would be suicidal and so the perk tweak I suggested above would be worse for them, at least currently it will give them a chance at taking a hit.
Warband never had a mechanic by which you healed a third of your character's health-bar by entering a battle, and could do so until fully healed. Give me a break. I would like a balanced version of this perk as an option, however.

If your argument isn't to justify the actual mechanics of the perk, I don't think it's productive to hash it out.

I too would enjoy this perk, if all it did was recover my health-bar to 30% when I get knocked out or otherwise fall below 20% -- or even below that 30% line. This could easily reflect medical knowledge, healing practices, et cetera, just like some top-level athletes carry out with their training. I could see that.

But you guys are arguing that it should go beyond that. You guys are arguing that when my character is at 30%, he should be able to jump into another battle and have 60% health. When he's at 60%, jumping in that battle should grant him 90% health, and of course healed fully after that.

That specifically is what I am arguing against, and what is ridiculously broken gameplay. For that, I lose out on an option for a high-level perk, or I lose out on having balanced gameplay. That really sucks.
 

Berzerker Jay

That alone, being healed to a minimum of 30% after each battle, would be powerful!

That means you're there to lead your men and their morale doesn't suffer. It means you can interact with the next battle, give orders and affect the outcome you want. It means you can even continue to fight.

That should be enough without going ****ing Harry Potter about it. :razz:
 

Because

Sergeant
That alone, being healed to a minimum of 30% after each battle, would be powerful!

That means you're there to lead your men and their morale doesn't suffer. It means you can interact with the next battle, give orders and affect the outcome you want. It means you can even continue to fight.

That should be enough without going ****ing Harry Potter about it. :razz:
Its' only 30% of missing health so if you were knocked to 10 you'd get 30 back, if in the next battle you weren't injured you'd only get 20% back etc.
That said I thought you were arguing against the basic premise of getting lost health back instantly after a battle (which is the mechanic I'd want to keep) so sorry if I miss-understood you. I think we can easily agree on something that would work for both otherwise as I'd be just as happy with being healed to a minimum of 30%, or healing 30% of damaged lost in that battle like warband.
 
Top Bottom