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)
FUNDAMENTAL RPGOLOGY THREAD
Posts
Hasvers
1298
Hasvers
View playlists
CloseYou did a great job! I'll await your specs.
To add a short comment on your entry:
I think the point on which your system would gain most in being extended is that so far, the state of the conflict boils down to: -who is dead -who has the cursed sword and the cool sword -who is empowered. Which is like a couple of different markers going into different slots corresponding to the characters, with actions moving markers around.
These three questions are enough to generate a lot of thinking, but the battle is puzzle-like in the sense that what you need to do is find the proper sequence of states and repeat it. To evolve toward strategy you'd need a broader, perhaps more continuous way of differentiating between (tactically relevant) stages in the evolution of the battle, so that local optimization like what we're doing here would have to be weighed against global currents that obey different, "emergent" mechanisms.
Given that your system does the tactical part really well with few ingredients, it seems to me that a single additional mechanics could contribute that dimension while keeping the system elegant, easy to balance, and so on, but I'm not sure about the best way to do it, so I'm interested in your opinion (or your rebuttal ;))
If I weren't buried under projects already, I would be extremely interested in collaborating on nonconformist RPGs with you ;)
To add a short comment on your entry:
I think the point on which your system would gain most in being extended is that so far, the state of the conflict boils down to: -who is dead -who has the cursed sword and the cool sword -who is empowered. Which is like a couple of different markers going into different slots corresponding to the characters, with actions moving markers around.
These three questions are enough to generate a lot of thinking, but the battle is puzzle-like in the sense that what you need to do is find the proper sequence of states and repeat it. To evolve toward strategy you'd need a broader, perhaps more continuous way of differentiating between (tactically relevant) stages in the evolution of the battle, so that local optimization like what we're doing here would have to be weighed against global currents that obey different, "emergent" mechanisms.
Given that your system does the tactical part really well with few ingredients, it seems to me that a single additional mechanics could contribute that dimension while keeping the system elegant, easy to balance, and so on, but I'm not sure about the best way to do it, so I'm interested in your opinion (or your rebuttal ;))
If I weren't buried under projects already, I would be extremely interested in collaborating on nonconformist RPGs with you ;)
Merlandese
3235
author=azalathemad
I tend to play RPGs with unusual battle systems, like Valkyrie Profile, Last Remnant, Resonance of Fate, the entire Romancing Saga/Saga Frontier series...
I'm also a massive fan of Tri-Ace and Kawazu battle systems! RoF is killer.
I guess here are my notes. They may be a bit sloppy, so take care when reading!
Game 01A, 01B, and 01C
3xT by Treason89
QUICK SUMMARY
This game showcases three different systems but never tries to consolidate them. I would have liked to see all three systems come together, as if to teach us three ideas and grow a new, awesome system with all three. The DOT system is less like a new idea and more like a How To of some simple--albeit useful--battle design concepts. I love math, and seeing basic equations in action is great, but it hardly falls under unique or fun.
The tri-element system has more to offer. It starts in an often-used concept of three opposing elements, but it rids the spells of MP and instead pits their uses against each other in a clever way. I think if the three type of moves went beyond simple elemental damages, their strategic value could become immense. One element could dictate mobility, for example.
The lenses system is probably the most unique of them, but also the hardest to understand. Though when you get the concept, you completely get it. There doesn't seem to be much room for strategy, although the multiple layers of ON/OFF activity that Pry uses is somewhat strategic since if you want to polarize AND select a new enemy you may have to take two turns.
The most disappointing thing for me was that they all used ATB. I don't necessarily believe that ATB is bad, but it had no effect on battles other than to make it difficult to learn the systems that were being explored. The worst part is that the only battle that really touched on the topic of turns/time did so without much emphasis on the importance. You were supposed to beat a dragon in x amount of turns, but the ATB guage worked against that by striking the player when they were trying to think which command would be best.
Since none of the games connect their design ideas, I'm going to rate each of these as three separate entries: Seiken, Almadana, and Prysmatic.
3xT: Seiken
Originality (4/20pts): Not much new happening here.
Elegance (12/25pts): Basic, yet not confusing.
Clarity (16/20pts): What needed to be done was too clear.
Depth (2/25pts): As a concept for DOT, it held very little depth.
Bonus (5/10pts): I enjoyed it as a demonstration for DOT.
TOTAL: 39/100
3xT: Almadana
Originality (10/20pts): Took a classic concept and gave it some new functions.
Elegance (10/25pts): Text boxes with number updates aren't that stylish.
Clarity (13/20pts): More clear than not.
Depth (16/25pts): Currently not too deep, but the possibilities...!
Bonus (10/10pts): Heavy tilt for potential and favoritism.
TOTAL: 59/100
3xT: Prysmatic
Originality (15/20pts): The lens aspect was original, but every other aspect was not.
Elegance (10/25pts): The best part was the visual lens in the corner.
Clarity (3/20pts): Less clear than Pry's lenses.
Depth (8/25pts): Too much variation that leads to similar results.
Bonus (2/10pts): The use of light science needs more credit.
TOTAL: 38/100
3xT TOTAL: 136/300, 45/100
Game 02: Battle System Experiment
by caparo
QUICK SUMMARY
I had fun with this, but it felt a little convoluted. The many status effects linked nicely and thematically with move titles, but even when I executed a combo of Crippling the enemy and exploiting the bonus damage, I never felt like I actually got that bonus damage--at least not enough for me to feel satisfied in the maneuver. Eventually, the strategy of chaining moves together didn't seem to pay off much more than wildly plucking whichever move I felt like doing at the time. I think if the moves had a larger impact, and if they were introduced more gradually throughout the five battles, the system would feel better.
Originality (11/20pts): Locked skills and intermingling effects felt fresh-y.
Elegance (15/25pts): A lot of reading and not a lot of organization.
Clarity (15/20pts): Info overload, but the process was clear.
Depth (10/25pts): Not as much depth as it would appear.
Bonus (4/10pts): I think it hits RPG battle basics well.
TOTAL: 55/100
Game 03: Delusions of Duty
by AegixDrakan
QUICK SUMMARY
This game was fun and had a nice duelist vibe. The excess HP made it feel a bit over-inflated, but there's definitely a sort of intelligent math strategy that requires you to whittle away HP at a faster rate than your opponent. Most of the skills connected in a cool way, but this basic battle interface didn't help. Having the skills in a list was unintuitive and didn't help guide which moves I was picking for their own capabilities and which I was picking because it was available. Plus, forethought into unlocking other moves was abandoned a lot because I couldn't always see the connection in a more spatial way. However, the concept is good in itself. The single digit damage is easy to track and easy to understand. The layers of stances and feints and buffs and all of that are a bit too hard to see at a glance, though, and sometimes I found myself setting up a set of attacks that did 0 damage because I couldn't keep track of which buffs we each had.
Originality (10/20pts): Unlocking skills on the fly!
Elegance (13/25pts): Better setup recommended than a list.
Clarity (13/20pts): Couldn't understad the layers of buffs.
Depth (10/25pts): Somehwat came down to DOT only.
Bonus (5/10pts): I do like a one-on-one duel.
TOTAL: 51/100
Game 04: Oracle of Askigaga - Duel Test
by Marrend
QUICK SUMMARY
This is fun and effective, but that's because it has already been made. It's 100% Suikoden style. It kind of gets to the heart of battles with its style, though, but lacks any real strategy. Once you know what move is associated with each text line the battles are easy. Each phrase translates quickly into a command you should follow, and since you only have three commands, it's not a real problem.
Originality (0/20pts): I've played this exact system before.
Elegance (10/25pts): The system itself is inherently elegant.
Clarity (18/20pts): Very clear.
Depth (3/25pts): Depth ends at figuring out the prompts.
Bonus (2/10pts): The system was still made really well.
TOTAL: 33/100
Game 05: Karin's Battle System
by Karin's Soulkeeper
QUICK SUMMARY
All functions were relgated to skills, which is nice. It demonstartes something kind of basic about battles. However, a lot was resting on a pre-battle setup and post-battles stats. Furthermore, Waiting was a big function. You were required to wait a lot. To use skills you had to wait for them to show up. Especially with so few skills to choose from, each turn devolved into using whatever skill was ready at the time, or wait until one came. There wasn't much strategy beyond doing whatever the system allowed you to do in that moment. Even worse were the Master skills, which basically cleared the enemies for you just because you waited long enough.
Originality (3/20pts): Nothing especially groundbreaking.
Elegance (10/25pts): Too basic to be inelegant.
Clarity (14/20pts): Almost too clear. May as well be Press A.
Depth (3/25pts): Moves are handed to you.
Bonus (3/10pts): Moo.
TOTAL: 33/100
Game 06: Mace Blue Arena
by Cap_H
QUICK SUMMARY
I think this, in all of its frustration, actually simplifies the concept of "normal" RPG battles well. Really well. This is sort of the heart of battles. The problem is that it never builds it back up to anything interesting or strategic. I went from hating this entry to liking it fairly quickly. It may not be a good game, but the intentionally under-developed system really lays bare what a lot of RPG battles are comprised of. There is a lot of waiting involved, and without knowing your enemy Charges it is too hard to win (after Saracen). This works well as another demonstration of battle basics, although it never tells us how to make it better. (Added love for a game with a "Weapon Color" name).
Originality (2/20pts): Basics reborn.
Elegance (12/25pts): Elegance in moderation.
Clarity (15/20pts): Clear, but lacks opponent information.
Depth (5/25pts): The same basic strategy every time.
Bonus (10/10pts): Heart of Design Bonus!
TOTAL: 34/100
Game 07: Game(?)
by Azalathemad
QUICK SUMMARY
This game takes some concepts of certain moves and turns them into the characters. Furthermore, each move must be used. HP and MP are the same thing, and the fact that the healer must get hit when healing an ally means that her function is not infinite. This is a really clever concept. The idea to swap items as you hit is also great, since you must touch people in a way that is beneficial. Grabbing the Fantastic Sword is the only way to beat the Titan, and giving the Cursed sword to an enemy is a great idea. The Vampire can become a resting period if she attacks herself, and the Tank can become a resting period when hitting the Priestess (as well as recovering). The Healer can also rest by healing herself, which is like getting more MP if she's already harmed. You end up with a large supply of strategy, I think. Defeating the Titan becomes a real puzzle, and the variation of enemies could create a wonderful game. And the fact that enemies are reactionary rather than action-oriented is really new. Defeating the Titan is like picking a lock. I almost had him, but one strategic mistake made it so I didn't do enough damage in the fight and he healed back to max. By then I was running low on HP/MP.
Originality (17/20pts): A lot of concepts that are new to me.
Elegance (14/25pts): Better off not a text game.
Clarity (18/20pts): Understood before Round 1 was over.
Depth (18/25pts): Would falter if characters remain same.
Bonus (8/10pts): Very enjoyable!
TOTAL: 75/100
Game 08: The Campaign
by NeverSilent
QUICK SUMMARY
I like this system, and I think it has some great potential if worked on hardcore. The Attack/Support dynamic is a nice twist, and although it's not entirely new (Thousand Arms?) it has some fresh ideas. The rows change the role, but the columns also change which enemy is available to be struck. The best moves in my mind were ones that manipulated the positioning of the enemies or the players even further, although it still fell a bit short of the potential. The idea was there, though. Even if the game wasn't polished to a point where moving enemies was useful, I could see that that the creator had that intention. I never felt like the player positions held as much strategic value as they could have. Maybe it's because all of the characters had so many moves to choose from. I never felt like Swapping was vital for a victory, even if it was necessary in its way. More battle emphasis on position and less on the actual attacks/spells might be the best route.
Originality (14/20pts): Row/column importance.
Elegance (12/25pts): Somewhat clunky in parts.
Clarity (11/20pts): Takes a little to absorb.
Depth (12/25pts): The groundwork is there for it.
Bonus (5/10pts): Not buggy and potentially engaging.
TOTAL: 51/100
Game 09: Queen of the Ring
by rosesarecrimson
QUICK SUMMARY
I like the idea of each body part having a moveset, and even hitting enemy parts. Sort of reminds me of Vagrant Story. But I can't tell if any moves are worth doing, or how they compare to others. I also never know if I'm close or far from the enemy, or if they move to or from me. It seems like a lot is clear, but it really isn't. I never felt like I was making strategic decisions, nor did I feel like I was being told all of what I needed to know.
Originality (11/20pts): Body parts.
Elegance (8/25pts): Slimes don't even have body parts.
Clarity (7/20pts): Not clear what I could do.
Depth (10/25pts): It's possible there is further depth.
Bonus (1/10pts): I was never truly engaged.
TOTAL: 37/100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Azalathemad: Game - 75
3xT: Almadana - 59
Caparo: Battle System Experiment - 55
ArgixDraken: Delusions of Duty - 51
NeverSilent: The Campaign - 51
3xT: Seiken - 39
3xT: Prismatic - 38
Rosesarecrimson: Queen of the Ring - 37
Cap_H: Mace Blue Arena - 34
Marrend: Oracle of Askigaga - 33
Karin Battle System - 33
author=azalathemad
Awesome! I'll take an original drawing. I'll PM Hasvers the spec.
I tend to play RPGs with unusual battle systems, like Valkyrie Profile, Last Remnant, Resonance of Fate, the entire Romancing Saga/Saga Frontier series, and anything on RMN made by Craze. However, the one game that most inspired my entry was a Gameboy Advance SRPG called Yggdra Union. Each character had unique traits, you could steal items, and the one item you equip made a big difference in power. If you haven't played it yet, you should!
I'm also interested in collaborating on new projects or contest entries. In addition to designing battle systems, I can do general scripting (Ruby, Python, etc) and can release a game on multiple platforms (including iOS and Android). If any of this sounds useful, shoot me a message!
Your interest in collaboration is really cool.
And yep, playing it. It also has a PSP version for anyone interested. I don't like the series too much, but it certainly has some interesting ideas.
I have more of a soft spot for SMT, but that's just an elemental system done well.
Although Devil Survivor is a great mix for any SRPG.
I guess I'm a bit late but...
Congrats to the winners!
I bet we all learned something from this event. Lots that we could apply to future gam mak ;)
Congrats to the winners!
I bet we all learned something from this event. Lots that we could apply to future gam mak ;)
I didn't want to post here yesterday before Merlandese had given his scores, so now that he did...
YES! Thank you! I am entirely happy about this outcome, and just as grateful for all the useful feedback you have given. I'll try prove myself worthy of the bronze medal, promise.
Congratulations to azalathemad, Aegix_Drakan and everyone who participated! This was a really cool event and will have a permanent influence on how I want to approach battle systems in future projects.
Now, one last question for Hasvers: Given that you were quite critical when judging the submissions for the contest (and rightfully so), do you believe it was worth it? Would you say the contest was a success, even though it seems it mostly didn't go into the direction you had intended?
YES! Thank you! I am entirely happy about this outcome, and just as grateful for all the useful feedback you have given. I'll try prove myself worthy of the bronze medal, promise.
Congratulations to azalathemad, Aegix_Drakan and everyone who participated! This was a really cool event and will have a permanent influence on how I want to approach battle systems in future projects.
Now, one last question for Hasvers: Given that you were quite critical when judging the submissions for the contest (and rightfully so), do you believe it was worth it? Would you say the contest was a success, even though it seems it mostly didn't go into the direction you had intended?
Hasvers
1298
Haha, yes I allowed myself not to sugarcoat things too much, because I feel like it's part of judges duty to be earnest and help contestants improve as much as we can.
But I really hope people won't feel too bad about it. If any contestant does, may they please accept my apologies, because in any case I was really glad thanks to every person who took part in this!
I think it is a reasonable success for a very first attempt (for everyone involved). I will probably try to do a synthetic message or blog post to list every clever idea that people contributed - even the entries which I put in low ranks had things worth pointing out, though they didn't always work on their own.
It is true that no one came up with something that completely blew my mind, but given the constraints (having to actually implement the system and everything), I'd say it's a good start for a longer community effort toward mak better gam :)
I'd be interested in other people's opinions on this (don't hesitate to tell me what I could have done better as well!) and on whether they would like to have something more regular but with lower effort (like monthly discussion topics, occasional Release Somethings, or whatever) to continue improving our ideas and abilities.
But I really hope people won't feel too bad about it. If any contestant does, may they please accept my apologies, because in any case I was really glad thanks to every person who took part in this!
I think it is a reasonable success for a very first attempt (for everyone involved). I will probably try to do a synthetic message or blog post to list every clever idea that people contributed - even the entries which I put in low ranks had things worth pointing out, though they didn't always work on their own.
It is true that no one came up with something that completely blew my mind, but given the constraints (having to actually implement the system and everything), I'd say it's a good start for a longer community effort toward mak better gam :)
I'd be interested in other people's opinions on this (don't hesitate to tell me what I could have done better as well!) and on whether they would like to have something more regular but with lower effort (like monthly discussion topics, occasional Release Somethings, or whatever) to continue improving our ideas and abilities.
Treason89
360
Thanks to the judges, and other participants, for your opinions. All of them, positive or negative points of view, direct or funny comments, will definetely help me to go better!
Of course, as I said before, congratulations to Azalathemad for the gold! Also kudos for Aegix and Never Silent for reaching the podium! Gotta learn from you, guys.
About Hasvers question, I may just say my perception. I hope not to offend the judges, nor the winners or anybody. I see that the most appreciated systems are not only the most simple ones, but also the most similar ones to already existent and accepted systems. That even applies to the Almadana part of my entry. I think we (all) already have very strong ideas anchored in our minds, making creative thinking somehow difficult. It's to praise that there is people trying to break the pot, but I wonder how far we really are from the traditional systems.
I would highlight judges attention, as they were usually very aware of what was going on, and near to the participants. As the contest had also a lot in wide and height, being a very broad topic, a lot of different interpretations arose. That can be seen easily in all the different entries. So probably for further discussion about RPGology, why not focusing on an specific topic (we had four in this contest, as I understand it, the three rationales plus minimalism).
Thank you Hasvers for the main idea. Please go on with RPGology. I think that "continuous contest" isn't a good idea, but with this kind of discussion is always better do-and-see than write-and-answer. Ideas are great when floating but when a "game" (or entry or whatever) has to be done with those ideas is when their real potential can be seen and evaluated.
Of course, as I said before, congratulations to Azalathemad for the gold! Also kudos for Aegix and Never Silent for reaching the podium! Gotta learn from you, guys.
About Hasvers question, I may just say my perception. I hope not to offend the judges, nor the winners or anybody. I see that the most appreciated systems are not only the most simple ones, but also the most similar ones to already existent and accepted systems. That even applies to the Almadana part of my entry. I think we (all) already have very strong ideas anchored in our minds, making creative thinking somehow difficult. It's to praise that there is people trying to break the pot, but I wonder how far we really are from the traditional systems.
I would highlight judges attention, as they were usually very aware of what was going on, and near to the participants. As the contest had also a lot in wide and height, being a very broad topic, a lot of different interpretations arose. That can be seen easily in all the different entries. So probably for further discussion about RPGology, why not focusing on an specific topic (we had four in this contest, as I understand it, the three rationales plus minimalism).
Thank you Hasvers for the main idea. Please go on with RPGology. I think that "continuous contest" isn't a good idea, but with this kind of discussion is always better do-and-see than write-and-answer. Ideas are great when floating but when a "game" (or entry or whatever) has to be done with those ideas is when their real potential can be seen and evaluated.
Don't you worry about offending anybody.
But really, most entries were very similar to existing ones, yours included (in the way they played out at least - different spell types don't make a different system when they play as one), which made the podium decisions very difficult.
The ones closest to others actually hit rock bottom, so not sure which ones you are referring to.
You could count rosesarecrimson, but unfortunately that entry was not finished yet. I would've loved to see it in action.
But really, most entries were very similar to existing ones, yours included (in the way they played out at least - different spell types don't make a different system when they play as one), which made the podium decisions very difficult.
The ones closest to others actually hit rock bottom, so not sure which ones you are referring to.
You could count rosesarecrimson, but unfortunately that entry was not finished yet. I would've loved to see it in action.
Hasvers
1298
Treason> Sure, we're here to discuss freely! Criticizing ideas doesn't mean criticizing the people behind, so no one should take offense, judges included ;)
The thing is, you used new ingredients to do something old (plain heal or plain attack); azala used old ingredients to do something new (a puzzle of permutations). For me, your ideas hint at something potentially extremely interesting, but as such they don't really work, so I couldn't rank them higher than something a bit more conservative but deeper and more functional.
But clearly - anticipating a bit on my eventual blog post here - a system with soulkeeper's minimalistic pre-battle combinatorics, an environmental mechanism like your lens, azala's elegant way of making each action count on multiple planes, aegix' play of counterattacks and anticipations, and neversilent's game of substitution (among other interesting ideas seen here) would be much closer to my dream battle system than any single entry.
Also, I'm not talking about a permanent contest, because we all have actual things to do from time to time, but more like a permanent conversation, if people feel like they've got something to contribute.
The thing is, you used new ingredients to do something old (plain heal or plain attack); azala used old ingredients to do something new (a puzzle of permutations). For me, your ideas hint at something potentially extremely interesting, but as such they don't really work, so I couldn't rank them higher than something a bit more conservative but deeper and more functional.
But clearly - anticipating a bit on my eventual blog post here - a system with soulkeeper's minimalistic pre-battle combinatorics, an environmental mechanism like your lens, azala's elegant way of making each action count on multiple planes, aegix' play of counterattacks and anticipations, and neversilent's game of substitution (among other interesting ideas seen here) would be much closer to my dream battle system than any single entry.
Also, I'm not talking about a permanent contest, because we all have actual things to do from time to time, but more like a permanent conversation, if people feel like they've got something to contribute.
azalathemad
77
author=Hasvers
I'm interested in your opinion
I get the feeling that you could add all sorts of spices to the system and you still end up with something that feels puzzle-like.
author=Treason89
with this kind of discussion is always better do-and-see than write-and-answer
That's a great way of putting it, and is the main reason I tend to avoid theoretical game design debates.
author=Merlandese
RoF is killer
Does it get any better after Chapter 5? I found the new city with the grenade shop, which opens up some things, but the game still feels like a tedious one-trick pony.
Merlandese
3235
author=azalathemad
Does it get any better after Chapter 5? I found the new city with the grenade shop, which opens up some things, but the game still feels like a tedious one-trick pony.
The ability to move your gun around on the grid, a well as getting new guns opens things up a tad, but you're really hitting the main evil of the system on the head: The game's scope and the battle system's scope don't match up. Even if you love the system like I do, and appreciate some of the finer nuances in it, the playtime of the game exceeds the playlength of the system to a degree that it doesn't leave you wanting more. In fact, it makes you rush it near the end. So it isn't ever a bad system in my opinion. It's just that the game forces you to play it death.
It's also excellent battle system conversation fodder. Worth playing if you want to see some really interesting ideas being churned around.
author=Hasvers
But clearly - anticipating a bit on my eventual blog post here - a system with soulkeeper's minimalistic pre-battle combinatorics, an environmental mechanism like your lens, azala's elegant way of making each action count on multiple planes, aegix' play of counterattacks and anticipations, and neversilent's game of substitution (among other interesting ideas seen here) would be much closer to my dream battle system than any single...
I don't think this was possible to do within a month, especially considering that 3/4 of that month is spent on procrastinating ;p
caparo
25
author=Treason89
I see that the most appreciated systems are not only the most simple ones, but also the most similar ones to already existent and accepted systems.
Thanks to Treason for the insight. I was unaware of my subconscious thoughts until I read your comment; that when designing my battle system, it needed to be accessible to players - which ultimately resulted in a simple but similar system. Which still needs balancing and more diverse party members, probably with more restricted skill sets...
author=karins_soulkeeperauthor=HasversI don't think this was possible to do within a month, especially considering that 3/4 of that month is spent on procrastinating ;p
But clearly - anticipating a bit on my eventual blog post here - a system with soulkeeper's minimalistic pre-battle combinatorics, an environmental mechanism like your lens, azala's elegant way of making each action count on multiple planes, aegix' play of counterattacks and anticipations, and neversilent's game of substitution (among other interesting ideas seen here) would be much closer to my dream battle system than any single...
Haha, Hasvers, you expect too much ;p
Or conversely, all that together would result in a bloated and overcomplicated battle system
Hasvers
1298
I get the feeling that you could add all sorts of spices to the system and you still end up with something that feels puzzle-like.Fair enough, I guess I get the burden of proof ;)
Haha, Hasvers, you expect too much ;p
Or conversely, all that together would result in a bloated and overcomplicated battle system
Haha I didn't mean it like this. I meant that everyone here had at least one idea that was really interesting and a step in the right direction.
Now that we've seen them in use, I believe that combining only these instead of padding the rest with more standard ingredients, we'd actually get something that was very creative and still functional.
If and when I can, I'll try to demonstrate that this is far less ambitious than it sounds - RPGs have that many ingredients and more, it's just that we're so used to them we don't realize it. But certainly, after accusing other people of having bloated systems, I'd have to be extra careful about it :D (and you'd be in your full right to fire snarks at will if I end up with a babelian monstruosity :P)
Edit: a ten-minute hypothetical attempt for fun:
it's easy to insert Campaign-like position in azala's system: you can attack only in your row or column and when you hit someone (ally or enemy), instead of switching items, you switch positions. Each character gets only one skill, and 1HP as in Cap_H's system.
Items and buffs become the same thing, and they are associated permanently with a position, possibly with some sort of combinatorial properties like Treason's lens (i.e. if you leave multiple buffs in the same position, they combine or cancel according to some logic).
All actions on both sides are decided at the beginning of the turn, and thus the order in which characters move (possibly affected by the buffs) becomes important to elaborate parries and counters like Aegix': if you switch positions before the enemy can act, their action will land on someone else than whom they expected (plus they receive different buffs).
You choose the composition of your team beforehand from a small set, most of their skills being about leaving or eating buffs/items, and cooldowns are replaced by the more emergent property that many skills become really useful only in combination, so there is a necessary build up (for instance one can create a chain reaction if the same "buffs" are found not only in one position but in a whole row or column).
This looks more and more like a system out of a Nippon Ichii game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Still very puzzle-like, though, probably. But I can do better with more thinking ;)
Items and buffs become the same thing, and they are associated permanently with a position, possibly with some sort of combinatorial properties like Treason's lens (i.e. if you leave multiple buffs in the same position, they combine or cancel according to some logic).
All actions on both sides are decided at the beginning of the turn, and thus the order in which characters move (possibly affected by the buffs) becomes important to elaborate parries and counters like Aegix': if you switch positions before the enemy can act, their action will land on someone else than whom they expected (plus they receive different buffs).
You choose the composition of your team beforehand from a small set, most of their skills being about leaving or eating buffs/items, and cooldowns are replaced by the more emergent property that many skills become really useful only in combination, so there is a necessary build up (for instance one can create a chain reaction if the same "buffs" are found not only in one position but in a whole row or column).
This looks more and more like a system out of a Nippon Ichii game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Still very puzzle-like, though, probably. But I can do better with more thinking ;)
caparo
25
@ Hasvers
Personally I think the hypothetical system you described sounds rather convoluted. But there is a slim possibility that it may work if implemented well. It's up to you to prove me wrong ;p
Personally I think the hypothetical system you described sounds rather convoluted. But there is a slim possibility that it may work if implemented well. It's up to you to prove me wrong ;p
Aegix_Drakan
6037
*decides to check on the contest after a few days of binge playing Galactic Civ 2*
...Wait, I got second?! :o Holy cow.
*crono trigger fistpump* I'm glad you guys enjoyed it! :D
Congrats to the winners for winning and congrats everyone else for putting something out there!
...Wait, I got second?! :o Holy cow.
*crono trigger fistpump* I'm glad you guys enjoyed it! :D
Congrats to the winners for winning and congrats everyone else for putting something out there!
Hasvers
1298
Aegix> Haha I guess you got caught in the snare of the last humble bundle? Well congrats to you! (for coming second, not for playing galciv, obviously :P)
caparo> True :P To be honest, my hypothetical system cobbled up haphazardly from ideas by eight different people turns out to be pretty close to how I'd do a turn-based Bomberman RPG... which is probably not my ideal battle system, but welp, I might just be tempted to make it happen.
caparo> True :P To be honest, my hypothetical system cobbled up haphazardly from ideas by eight different people turns out to be pretty close to how I'd do a turn-based Bomberman RPG... which is probably not my ideal battle system, but welp, I might just be tempted to make it happen.
Hasvers
1298
Okay that was completely irrational given the fact that I'm late on everything else, but I couldn't resist it: I took three hours and made a prototype
Chimera Battle System
(WIP, requires RMXP RTP, lacks nonrandom AI and party selection, and surely buggy as hell, hence prototype)
It contains things I wouldn't try to put in a battle system (elements and spatial play as the main ingredients) but it kinda works, I think. At least it demonstrates what I meant by putting all those ideas together. I'd give myself a 35 for effort :P
Chimera Battle System
(WIP, requires RMXP RTP, lacks nonrandom AI and party selection, and surely buggy as hell, hence prototype)
It contains things I wouldn't try to put in a battle system (elements and spatial play as the main ingredients) but it kinda works, I think. At least it demonstrates what I meant by putting all those ideas together. I'd give myself a 35 for effort :P
azalathemad
77
author=Hasvers
Chimera Battle System
I was really confused, so I started picking completely random pairs of things. And then it said that I won :P
Hasvers
1298
Hahaha okay, I guess I deserve that for putting up a one-evening prototype :P Oh well, I'll do better during next PyWeek, or more probably drop that altogether as I was forever destined to. Thanks for the feedback though, I was mostly hoping to stir the dying discussion a little bit, but I guess it all really is kinda over :P
At least it proved to me that you did something right by having enemies only react to the player's actions: this system was much more transparent before adding enemy moves, probably because two swaps per turn create too much confusion.
At least it proved to me that you did something right by having enemies only react to the player's actions: this system was much more transparent before adding enemy moves, probably because two swaps per turn create too much confusion.
