Featured Games
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Engines
Resources
Engine Bulletins
Links
What is Makerscore?
Store
RMN Music Pack
Event History
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
The Latest
RMN TV
#rpgmaker.net IRC
New to RMN?
Profile
LockerFELDSCHLACHT IV'S PROFILE
Close
Hey, what's up? My name is Feldschlacht IV, but a lot of people also call me Mog, so that's fine too. I like working on my game, and I also like downloading some of your games and giving them a spin as well. I'm also big on community related things to get all of us together for whatever reason. If you're sticking around here, you'll definitely see more of me in the future.
See you later!
See you later!
[ACE] Better enemy behavior
[ACE] Better enemy behavior
Thanks guys. Make sure to note that I'm using Yanfly's Battle Engine, so whatever the solution, it has to be compatable with that.
[ACE] Better enemy behavior
Hi guys! I hope you remember me. I haven't been around for a while, but that's because I'm currently on deployment, where internet connectivity is limited. However, I did bring my laptop, so I'm still burning away on my game (and I'm actually making fantastic progress).
However one thing about Ace I wish was better was the ability to customize enemy behavior. A good example is FF6, while an easy game, had pretty cool enemy AI; enemies could counter an attack with a specific one of their own, altered their behavior based on how many were in their (or your) party, reacted based on skills used, and so on. How can you do this in Ace?
However one thing about Ace I wish was better was the ability to customize enemy behavior. A good example is FF6, while an easy game, had pretty cool enemy AI; enemies could counter an attack with a specific one of their own, altered their behavior based on how many were in their (or your) party, reacted based on skills used, and so on. How can you do this in Ace?
The Screenshot Topic Returns
The world map I've been cooking up so far. It's not done yet. It's too big to put in this page, so click it to view it in its own tab for best results.
http://oi47.tinypic.com/6f7dpj.jpg
http://oi47.tinypic.com/6f7dpj.jpg
What Videogames Are You Playing Right Now?
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
author=Craze
I would also say that trying to cram long-term effects into short, repetitive battles is a Stupid Thing.
Final Fantasy X immediately comes to mind where Poison left you dead as fuck in like 3 or so turns. I think it actually took off a quarter of your HP every turn. I can see that working if short battles are what you're going for (which is generally a good strategy for games with lots of battles throughout).
The idea is to make them short but deadly. The SaGa series and Final Fantasy XIII excelled at this; battles were generally pretty short but they all suffered the pain of death. Status effects in turn, should be made to be equally crippling to whoever they apply to. Make Poison do more damage, make Blindness equate to the amount of damage done so that missing an attack means that enemy is alive long enough to fuck you up (instead of being a mere annoyance), and so on and so forth.
The issue with status effects not being useful is because battles aren't dangerous enough to begin with. The question shouldn't be "Why use status effects for easy battles", the question should be "Why are your battles so easy?"
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
author=Crystalgate
In their cases, the question is, why would the player want to prevent the damage from being inflicted instead of just eating it and then casting a convenient heal spell? In the majority of cases, there's no reason to want to do that.
The issue then is the danger of damage and the ease of healing, rather than the use of status effects. In a game like Final Fantasy VII damage or even a K.O. is just a minor inconvenience that can be fixed in a turn or two. Compare games like the SaGa series where heavy damage must be prevented at all cost and a downed party member meant that unless shit turned around fast, you were fucked.
The problem with a status effect that can fail is that I need a contingency plan if I want to use it. However, usually it turn out that the best tactic is to make that contingency plan the main plan instead and just skip the status effect altogether.
Then make the risk of the status effect as valuable as the contingency plan.
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
author=Craze
I'm not a huge fan of status RNG anymore. I also think that thinking of them as "status effects" is a problem -- you need to forget that they exist entirely. Seriously.
You only have "abilities" (or skills or techniques or whatever, the term doesn't matter). Ability A does X, Ability B does Y, and Ability C does Z. They should be designed so that each skillset is cohesive and fitting for a character, and then to be synergistic with a party on the whole.
So maybe Jenn's Ability A is an attack that deals 50 Phys damage and then 60 Phys damage over three turns. That's not a "poison" or "bleed" status effect -- that's just part of the ability. Same with Chris's Ability A putting the target to sleep, or if they resist mental effects, making them drowsy instead. It's not "sleep," it's "Chris is casting Lullaby. It does X."
tl;dr: ailments are not something you throw in and think about as an RPG element. They're parts of a character's skillset if and when they fit.
The issue with this is when you broaden those 'same skills that do X thing' over different facets of the game. It's much easier and cohesive to have 'X accessory protects against the Poison status effect' than 'X accessory protects against Y effect done by Z character'.
Of course you can have the latter, just like you can have every character have unique skills that produce a unique effect. But the reason why status effects exist in principle is the uniformity of a certain state that can be applied, prevented, cured, etc all around the board by a versatile cast and crew, friend and foe alike.
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
author=Joe
And if you are also assuming that status effects don't really give a very relevant tactical advantage.
If status effects don't give a relevant tactical advantage, then they're not worth using at all, aren't they? To add on the above, I'm not sure how I feel about status effects having 100% success rate (assuming non immunity). Part of the issue with status effects is that if the chance of success is so low that they're not worth them failing over and over again and basically never working, the opposite can happen, they always work (once again, assuming non immunity) and every single subsequent fight becomes a predictable joke.
For example, say you're fighting a motherfucking Behemoth that poses a very credible threat to your party. You know that casting Poison on it can pose an incredible advantage, but he's so strong that you're unsure if it'll work, so part of your battle tactic is a contingency plan of preparing other skills to use for victory.
Part of any battle ever is the assumption that everything, anything might not work, even if it can. Part of the fun of battles, for me, is the back of my mind of 'well, this might not work, and if it doesn't, what else do I do? How can I increase the odds of my trump card working? What's my backup plan if it doesn't?'
Combat systems: Do's and Dont's & Opinions
author=Crystal
Don't make single target status effect have any less than 100% accuracy, I will not use it then for anything less than a boss. If an enemy dies in less than three hits or is nonthreatening, I will not use the status effect even if it has a 100% accuracy. Attaching the status effect to an HP damaging attack doesn't help either, if I'm injuring an enemy, it's scheduled to be dead very soon anyway.
I am totally down with this if you are also assuming that all status effects don't work on all enemies.
Submitted Items
 Games - Developer |
 Games - Tester |
 Games - Other |
 Reviews |
 Media |
 Articles |
 Tutorials |
 Scripts |
 Utilities |
 Statuses |
 Posts |
