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)
CONSISTENT MAGIC SYSTEMS
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
CloseMy main reason for having elements at all is to be able to make battles flow differently from each-other. Make different strategies better or worse in different battles. Changing enemy tactics is one way to do this, but elements are another. By combining different enemy tactics with different elemental weaknesses and resistances, there are vastly more possible battles.
So, more elements adds more variety.
However, there's obviously a limit where it becomes overcomplicated, hard to remember, and generally obnoxious. If you have 20 elements, that's barely different from just removing elements entirely and making enemies resist individual skills instead. Grouping skills into elements lets the player figure out which strategies are better in a simpler and faster way than trying out every single skill to see whether it works. (For the same reason, I appreciate when status effect resistances are grouped up into categories.)
So, more elements adds more variety.
However, there's obviously a limit where it becomes overcomplicated, hard to remember, and generally obnoxious. If you have 20 elements, that's barely different from just removing elements entirely and making enemies resist individual skills instead. Grouping skills into elements lets the player figure out which strategies are better in a simpler and faster way than trying out every single skill to see whether it works. (For the same reason, I appreciate when status effect resistances are grouped up into categories.)
from RyaReisenderCan you imagine if Pokémon had only three elements? If everything in that game was limited to Fire, Grass, and Water, the whole thing would fall completely flat. Granted, Pokémon's a unique kind of RPG in its own right, but its unbelievable number of possibilities stems from its use of 18 different elements (and combinations of, too!).
What does a 4th element add in terms of possibilities/fun that you can't already have with 3 elements. My claim is: Any more elements than 3 will just add to the complexity but never to the possibilities and fun of a game.
The rest is more or less covered by what LockeZ' said. Having multiple elements creates situations where different strategies are more useful so you don't play the whole game fighting every battle the exact same way. In games as redundant as RPGs, variety is necessary to help avoid repetitive gameplay.
RyaReisender
200
If Pokémon only had 3 elements, I might actually enjoy it.
At least then it would be obvious which monster to use on what without always having an elemental table with you.
How do all those elements add to the game? It's the same "Look up with element is good to use and use it" whether there are 3 elements or 20.
At least then it would be obvious which monster to use on what without always having an elemental table with you.
How do all those elements add to the game? It's the same "Look up with element is good to use and use it" whether there are 3 elements or 20.
Treason89
360
There is usually more about elemental relationships than just weak/strong. For example:
Elements that nullify other elements
Elements strong against two or more elements
Wildcard (?) elements: strong against everything but no resistance
Just illustrating it a bit more, usually in water>fire>earth>wind systems the system is just like that, water strong against fire and weak against wind, fire strong against earth and weak against water, and so on.
But what if wind is weak against fire (as wind feeds fire) and earth is invulnerable. On the other hand earth would be weak against wind and water (by erosion), so its two weaknesses for a invulnerability.
You can also have modulation of the strenght, (like it can be a x2 strong, or a x4 or x10 strong).
Such possibilities would be pretty limited if only three elements are in play. However, I've to point that RyaReisender just hit something: unless developer is a real mad person, three element systems will tend to be fair and balanced. Sadly they may be boring so, how would you balance a system with more than three elements, for it to be as fair as possible? (Which is, in fact, the topic! But now a reference of balance appeared).
Elements that nullify other elements
Elements strong against two or more elements
Wildcard (?) elements: strong against everything but no resistance
Just illustrating it a bit more, usually in water>fire>earth>wind systems the system is just like that, water strong against fire and weak against wind, fire strong against earth and weak against water, and so on.
But what if wind is weak against fire (as wind feeds fire) and earth is invulnerable. On the other hand earth would be weak against wind and water (by erosion), so its two weaknesses for a invulnerability.
You can also have modulation of the strenght, (like it can be a x2 strong, or a x4 or x10 strong).
Such possibilities would be pretty limited if only three elements are in play. However, I've to point that RyaReisender just hit something: unless developer is a real mad person, three element systems will tend to be fair and balanced. Sadly they may be boring so, how would you balance a system with more than three elements, for it to be as fair as possible? (Which is, in fact, the topic! But now a reference of balance appeared).
from RyaReisender
How do all those elements add to the game? It's the same "Look up with element is good to use and use it" whether there are 3 elements or 20.
I already told you; it adds variety. It's also a huge part of the game's learning curve. Just because the correct answer to every problem isn't totally obvious doesn't mean it's bad. It's true that several of Pokémon's elemental match-ups don't make perfect sense, but after you learn them, you become much more capable at the game. I would say Pokémon takes it to an extreme, but it doesn't make the game hopeless, and you could still win it even just by grinding.
Maybe if you described what kind of simple challenge you're looking for, I'd understand your perspective better. All I'm seeing is that you want the choices to be obvious and intuitive so you don't have to think about it.
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
Pokemon is all about using elements to build a team that can handle any elemental set of enemies, both offensive and defensive.
If there were only three elements, you'd only need two party members to do that, and it would be utterly effortless.
If there were only three elements, you'd only need two party members to do that, and it would be utterly effortless.
