Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
COMBAT SYSTEMS: DO'S AND DONT'S & OPINIONS
Posts
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
LockeZ
View playlists
CloseThere are ways to make a single-target 50% hitrate status effect useful against an enemy that dies in two rounds, but they mostly involve giving the enemy an area attack that can kill your entire party in two rounds. So if you're not making an SMT fangame, Crystalgate's first point is probably good advice.
But, just to clarify, the solution isn't "get rid of all those useless status effects so you only have damage skills left", it's "change those skills so they're useful more often"
Another good piece of advice is... make sure that when an enemy is using a powerful strategy, the player has some way to counter said strategy. All the time I see games where enemies inflict status effects or have instant death moves or have killer area attacks, and there's nothing the player can do to prevent or respond those strategies. All he can do is play the same way as always, and watch as the computer has fun.
But, just to clarify, the solution isn't "get rid of all those useless status effects so you only have damage skills left", it's "change those skills so they're useful more often"
Another good piece of advice is... make sure that when an enemy is using a powerful strategy, the player has some way to counter said strategy. All the time I see games where enemies inflict status effects or have instant death moves or have killer area attacks, and there's nothing the player can do to prevent or respond those strategies. All he can do is play the same way as always, and watch as the computer has fun.
I agree with Feldschlacht, but if you can't strike a middle ground between states not working versus working all the time, you might as well make them useful.
At best, it simplifies everything, and allows the dev to worry about other RNG spells.
Maybe later in the game, the player gets stronger states that don't have as much of a chance to work. The player already learned that states are awesome, so they might give it a chance.
If I get a poison spell that's shit in early-game content, I probably won't use it ever again.
At best, it simplifies everything, and allows the dev to worry about other RNG spells.
Maybe later in the game, the player gets stronger states that don't have as much of a chance to work. The player already learned that states are awesome, so they might give it a chance.
If I get a poison spell that's shit in early-game content, I probably won't use it ever again.
Status effects are fun! Just gotta balance 'em right. I always liked the Poison where it does a ton of damage for a single ability, but slowly over time (and not if it's cured).
Like you have Big Sword that can deal 2 damage, or you have Poison Sword that inflicts poison, dealing 1 damage a turn for 4 turns. Poison Sword does more damage, so you want to keep it on the enemies if you can, but otherwise you stick to Big Sword. A pretty simple rotation, but when you mix in enemies that remove poison, or just have other stuff that requires your attention, some good strategy is created. In some situations you may actually try and manage poisons on two or three targets at a time.
As an aside, I totally hate RNG and status effects tend to be worthless in general, so if they have lots of randomness... I will almost never use them.
Like you have Big Sword that can deal 2 damage, or you have Poison Sword that inflicts poison, dealing 1 damage a turn for 4 turns. Poison Sword does more damage, so you want to keep it on the enemies if you can, but otherwise you stick to Big Sword. A pretty simple rotation, but when you mix in enemies that remove poison, or just have other stuff that requires your attention, some good strategy is created. In some situations you may actually try and manage poisons on two or three targets at a time.
As an aside, I totally hate RNG and status effects tend to be worthless in general, so if they have lots of randomness... I will almost never use them.
Status effects in gaming tend to be pretty much like using a Croc Tear in BoF4, except with a hit chance.
So I'm just gonna reiterate what's been previously said: Just make status effects useful. Also, not all of them have to be 100% useful all of the time. But it you have a ST that's great for only a specific group of enemies, don't give us a spell that causes it. Make it an item drop, make it a weapon-induced skill, make a skill that inflicts all the case-specific STs at the same time, etc.
If your game is 10hrs long and you barely ever touch the silence spell, might as well downgrade it to a Mage Masher weapon that casts silence over a group of enemies, right? Or even simply a "Soundless Stone" that causes silence... Over the whole battlefield.
Status effects are a gamble, and I think that hit rates only make it more fun.
So I'm just gonna reiterate what's been previously said: Just make status effects useful. Also, not all of them have to be 100% useful all of the time. But it you have a ST that's great for only a specific group of enemies, don't give us a spell that causes it. Make it an item drop, make it a weapon-induced skill, make a skill that inflicts all the case-specific STs at the same time, etc.
If your game is 10hrs long and you barely ever touch the silence spell, might as well downgrade it to a Mage Masher weapon that casts silence over a group of enemies, right? Or even simply a "Soundless Stone" that causes silence... Over the whole battlefield.
Status effects are a gamble, and I think that hit rates only make it more fun.
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.
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.
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.
I never said that the effects themselves couldn't be standardized!
Also, even if they aren't, you can still have an accessory reduce degen effects 33%, or cause holds (stun, sleep, paralyze, petrify, etc.) to remain for only half the time.
Also, even if they aren't, you can still have an accessory reduce degen effects 33%, or cause holds (stun, sleep, paralyze, petrify, etc.) to remain for only half the time.
I like the idea that status effects (or any other "standard" mechanic) shouldn't just be taken for granted and added just for generic-RPG-checklist-completion sake. You gotta plan ahead and think about how that stuff affects the gameplay.
A big one for me is elemental weaknesses - I see that get thrown in haphazardly in so many games and it never feels like it makes sense. Why are there 3 copy-paste spells with different colors? What enemies are weak to them and is there a logic behind it? Should I bother wearing lightning-immunity armor? They can be done well but elements are one of those things that often aren't spared a thought.
A big one for me is elemental weaknesses - I see that get thrown in haphazardly in so many games and it never feels like it makes sense. Why are there 3 copy-paste spells with different colors? What enemies are weak to them and is there a logic behind it? Should I bother wearing lightning-immunity armor? They can be done well but elements are one of those things that often aren't spared a thought.
Crystalgate
694
If you give the characters a status effect skill, there needs to be a reason for the player to use it. The majority of status effects has a primary purpose of preventing the enemies from inflicting damage on you. 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 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.
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.
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.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=Feldschlacht IVThe 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.
That isn't enough. If the contingency plan works, then why even bother trying the thing that might not? In all likelihood, all you'll do is waste a round and then do the contingency plan, which means it takes extra time. At the very least, it needs to save you time - just to "break even," if it has a 50% hit chance, it needs to save you one round. If it has a 25% hit chance, it needs to save you four rounds. And breaking even isn't enough, because people will automatically do the thing that always works instead of the thing that sometimes works, so it actually needs to be the faster option on average.
Or, alternately, if it's not the faster option, it needs to be the necessary one. But in that case, a random chance of failure is utter bullshit.
Though if the player can (and is expected to) get high enough stats that he can reduce the failure chance to 0%, then okay.
Crystalgate
694
author=Feldschlacht IV
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.
Indeed. In games where enemies are non-threatening, status effects are practically useless. I can only imagine using them if they are a convenience (I can inflict it without increasing the amount of button pressing needed.)
Often (maybe even usually) when a skill doesn't work, the problem isn't the skill itself, rather it's that the combat isn't designed in a way that makes the skill desirable. No matter how strong you make a certain skill, it will not be useful unless your battles generate situations where said skill is desirable.
Then make the risk of the status effect as valuable as the contingency plan.
A risk is valuable? Do you mean the benefit if the status effect would work is worth the risk of it not working? In that case, the problem is that there usually isn't a "survive more" when it comes to battles. If the contingency plan is reliable, the benefit of a status effect is usually not a priority, like surviving with more HP intact which nobody cares about since they don't feel any pain when characters takes damage. If the contingency plan is not reliable, you create a situation where battles becomes an RNG gamble which a lot of players won't consider fair.
I can only see it work if you do have a contingency plan that's reliable, but there is a limit to how often you can use that contingency plan.
Anyway, I once worked on a game where I had a blindness spell that hit all enemies, had a 100% accuracy on all it should work on (slimes for example, were immune) and pretty much reduced their accuracy to 0%. In addition to that, healing spells were really expensive (basic attack spell - 5 MP, basic healing spell - 18 MP). I did two test runs trough a dungeon, one where I played the way I wanted it to be played and one where I went for (near) maximum offense. I found out that I was still doing better in a my maximum offense playtrough.
First I tried to just increase the damage output of enemies, but I had to make them unreasonable strong for an early dungeon. In the end, making status effects useful without breaking anything else required me to combine a slightly improved damage output of the enemies with lowering the MP pool of the characters, lowering the MP cost of status effect spells and changing the HP scores of the enemies a bit.
It really takes a lot to make vanilla status effect spells in RPGs useful.
I would also say that trying to cram long-term effects into short, repetitive battles is a Stupid Thing.
Crystalgate
694
Yeah. I aimed for battles lasting four turns and the status effects generally lasted three turns. That I found was enough turns, but just barely and it was an uphill struggle. Less turns than that and the circumstances needed to make status effects useful becomes more extreme. Most RPGs have even shorter battles than my project had.
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?"
I wonder how easy it would be to make the shift from short, easy-mode battles as a form of attrition to longer, mini-puzzle battles as an individual challenge. Maybe players would like it, but maybe they would be too entrenched in their ways and it would be nothing but frustrating.
One thing's for sure, I'm a lot less forgiving of Spam-A-To-Win battles nowadays. Even Paper Mario encouraged you to press A with a little class and sophistication.
One thing's for sure, I'm a lot less forgiving of Spam-A-To-Win battles nowadays. Even Paper Mario encouraged you to press A with a little class and sophistication.
pyrofiend324
535
On the topic of status effects, one of the things I'm doing with my games is having each element in a 6-element system have not just elemental strengths/weaknesses but also have each have a unique status effect to it (fire burns, ice freezes, lightning stuns, etc). Each of these states have unique debuffs to them, combining either basic debuffs or special effects. As an example:
Burn (Fire element)
- Physical attack debuff
- HP debuff
Freeze (Ice element)
- Physical / Magical defense debuff
- Cannot move/evade
- Removed upon damage
Stun (Lightning Element)
- Speed debuff
- MP drain
And things like that. I think this type of system would work out better if the battles are designed to be much longer / more challenging than usual, much like Pokemon. It would also add a unique twist to an element system aside from increased/decreased damage to certain enemies.
Burn (Fire element)
- Physical attack debuff
- HP debuff
Freeze (Ice element)
- Physical / Magical defense debuff
- Cannot move/evade
- Removed upon damage
Stun (Lightning Element)
- Speed debuff
- MP drain
And things like that. I think this type of system would work out better if the battles are designed to be much longer / more challenging than usual, much like Pokemon. It would also add a unique twist to an element system aside from increased/decreased damage to certain enemies.
In some of the Final Fantasy games, they had stuff where if frozen, casting fire on the afflicted person could unfreeze them. This is actually a very simple mechanic even on 2k3 to make a spell that removes status (but *hint**hint*someonemakeaplugin*hint* we don't currently have way to target your own party with offensive spells).
Crystalgate
694
We have some different ideas of how to handle status effects. I don't think there is one right way to do it, but I do think that status effects are useless or near so in most RPGs, so what I think can be said about all methods is that you need to do something different from what most RPGs does in order to make status effects useful. You need to ask yourself "what am I doing different from other RPGs that makes status effects useful?"
This I think goes with pretty much all ideas in your game. Let's say you want equipment to be something the player has to think about and not just about equipping the piece with the highest number. Commercial games are getting better here, but in most RM games it's easy to figure out what equipment to use, even if there's more than one available per tier. So once again, you need to do something different to get your desired result.
So, here's a new don't: Don't do something the same way as in other games and expect a different result.
This I think goes with pretty much all ideas in your game. Let's say you want equipment to be something the player has to think about and not just about equipping the piece with the highest number. Commercial games are getting better here, but in most RM games it's easy to figure out what equipment to use, even if there's more than one available per tier. So once again, you need to do something different to get your desired result.
So, here's a new don't: Don't do something the same way as in other games and expect a different result.
