ID:15714
 
HP - vitality of an object - can be complicated with armor, resistance, weakness, etc.

Damage - the absence, or subtracting of HP. This can be complicated with different weapons, units, attacks, etc. and the same things that can complicate HP.

I was thinking about this last night, and many games simply break down to a "haha I killed you/it." in the long run. Even if the game is not violent, it sometimes still involves eliminating your opponent.

Question 6
I'm coming at your base with two rockvees and an ambo - you've got a Jarmen, two scorps, and a quad. What do you do?


Ridiculous as it is, I was considering this question in a real life scenario to see how realistic RTS games are, but I realized a far wider concept. I've been playing Counter Strike recently and I figured a humvee with a rocket launcher could do some serious damage to a tank with a couple of rockets. However, in RTS it seems to have a more unrealistic HP variable. Obviously, a tank would have a significant amount of HP because they are costly to build. RTS usually builds in a series of "counter units" so that, say an infrantryman can do significantly more damage to a tank than usual. I was thinking if RTS built in a more powerful damage system then it would be more of a slaughterfest than it already is. It would sort of be like FPS, a unit can kill another with one shot, but in that meantime another unit can kill the unit that just shot.

HP seems to become one of the defining factors between game types. If it's high damage, low hp, you usually have a shoot 'em up. Strategy games tend to work in different damages with different units types, and RTS units are probably lower-hp than "slower" strategy games, like turn-based strategy. RPGs usually include similar systems like RTS, but are usually more complex. Although, they tend to be repetitive low to medium damage attacks against high hp opponents. It's funny when you can break down game types down pretty simply, eh?

To make reading this worth your while, here is a puppy.

all you're considering here is a difference of how Health is handled within a game... and even then, I find your comparisons pretty shallow.

If you're looking at a game like Plan of Attack (HL2 Mod), or HL2DM, or HLDM:S, it takes quite a bit to kill someone!

I've pumped several "double barrel blasts" of my shotgun into someone in HLDM:S and they haven't died, yet HLDM:S is one of the fastest paced games I have ever played.

You have Halo, a "shoot-em-up" where each player has a shield and even armor that can withstand a shower of projectiles. With your definition, Halo should be an RPG or an RTS(It was an RTS in concept stages though...)

In Dungeons and Dragons, players typically have pretty low hitpoints compared to the damage they can do (I don't even want to think about the vorpal weaponry)
Darke, I was making a generalization. I'm not writing a thesis on the freaking thing. Half Life Deathmatch is annoying to me, it's not really realistic if you're unloading on the guy with a shotgun at point blank range and he's still standing. Halo has a more COMPLICATED health system, didn't you read the top? If you remove shields, it is much easier to kill people. You're giving me too specific examples for a generalization I was proud of making.

Dungeons and Dragons? The Pen-and-Paper game? I was talking about MMOs and other RPGs. If you're fighting something around your strength, you will probably be there for a while fighting it with different attacks, spells, etc. You might even have a team of people working to kill things with you.
And if there's NO HP, you're probably playing Sim City!
I'm coming at your base with two rockvees and an ambo - you've got a Jarmen, two scorps, and a quad. What do you do?

Put it in french, and it makes as much sence to me as this.

What the hell is an Ambo, Jarman, or Quad?