Poll: Regenerating Health, a Poll

[godofallu]

I couldn't disagree with you more/

I'm a very good multiplayer FPS player, in fact for over 5 years I was considered a Pro player, who traveled state to state and city to city playing FPS games in tournaments.

I was so good at Halo 1, but eventually no matter how good you were in that game you would die. Simply because lesser players would eventually chip away your health to thde point where any idiot could finish you.

It wasn't that big of a deal in Halo since you had a sheild that regenerated at least, but in resistance multiplayer it is literally a deal breaker. How can I go on a 50 killstreak if any idiot will at the very least get to permanently remove 1/4th of my health?

You think 50 kill streaks should exist, dropped the "Pro Gamer" card, and referred to your opponents as idiots twice in the space of two short paragraphs.

I don't think your side of this debate benefits from your allegiance.

Let me sum up what I said so you can understand.

Skill should determine the outcome of every firefight. In a game without regenerating health skill has less and less to do with the outcome because one player keeps coming back at full health and the other keeps getting less and less. That disparity in health will eventually make the "lesser player" win a fight that he shouldn't have.

A pro should kill an idiot 50 times in a row, I truly believe this. A chess master should beat a chess noob 50 games in a row. He shouldn't have to start with less pieces each time he beats the rookie. I'm assuming you understand how chess works, if you don't ask someone to explain the analogy to you please.

Oh and I used "any idiot" as a way to describe a very bad player, it's a common saying. You might have heard of it as, "any swinging dick" but the meaning is basically the same. Not all my opponents are idiots, but some of my theoretical ones are.

 

[Zing]

I lean toward regeneration these days. For fantasy RPGs though potions+health bar are better imo.

 

[helo87]

My favorite system is what Halo CE did, and what Reach is doing: regenerating shields, and fixed health bar. It makes it so you don't get stuck with one bar of health, unable to progress, by giving you the shields for backup, while still maintaining the strategy of planning for your health instead of just charging in, ducking in cover for ten seconds, and proceeding.

I concur wholeheartedly! It gives a little more leeway for strategic planning then just charging in or praying that you find a health pack before you get nicked by a bullet.

 

[Trilaanus]

Dying interrupts the flow of gameplay for me. I'll stick with regenerating health for now; but I'd rather just be immortal from the get-go and only die/come close to dying in cutscenes.

 

[Estoki]

When you take a small wound such as a 9mm pistol shot (and depending on where it hit of course.) should "Regenerate", more serious wounds should require you to take out your medkit and play a little animation, leaving you vulnerable to another attack. (Which would discourage tanking and rushing out from cover, you can't dress your wounds while getting fired at, that would be suicide.)

 

[migo]

Regenerating health is just lame, that's the worst part of it. It's like having stupid AI that stops looking for you after you shot them in a stealth game (Splinter Cell Conviction). At least with health packs you need to venture out to find them, and there's a limited number. Regenerating health you just hide in a corner for a bit. It takes all the satisfaction out of not dying.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Let me sum up what I said so you can understand.

Skill should determine the outcome of every firefight. In a game without regenerating health skill has less and less to do with the outcome because one player keeps coming back at full health and the other keeps getting less and less. That disparity in health will eventually make the "lesser player" win a fight that he shouldn't have.

A pro should kill an idiot 50 times in a row, I truly believe this. A chess master should beat a chess noob 50 games in a row. He shouldn't have to start with less pieces each time he beats the rookie. I'm assuming you understand how chess works, if you don't ask someone to explain the analogy to you please.

Oh and I used "any idiot" as a way to describe a very bad player, it's a common saying. You might have heard of it as, "any swinging dick" but the meaning is basically the same. Not all my opponents are idiots, but some of my theoretical ones are.

I understood what you said perfectly.

Yours is a philosophy that lends itself best to "competitive gaming", which is a blatant oxymoron in the eyes of many. Adopting, as you do, the belief that a multiplayer deathmatch is somehow made better by 50 kill streaks, or that anyone who enters the arena without the apparently requisite skill set (as defined by you) should be deemed an idiot, points to a clear goal in this debate; your aim is to improve the game for yourself and those just like you. You're not taking into account the lesser players who deserve some measure of positive feedback for their efforts.

Why do they deserve such a thing? Because they are your friends. This logic only applies, obviously, to people who game with their friends and, subsequently, want everyone to have a good time.

I'm digressing mightily. The point is this: I believe yours is a comparatively narrow view of the subject matter. You're welcome to your opinion, but I don't think it should carry much weight in this discussion.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

I preferred the Halo way, where you had underlying, unregenerating health, under a regenerative shield.