The problem with Aegix' idea is that the enemy mirrors your setup. Certainly not a bad idea, but makes it hard to work in an actual game.
The unlocking/locking system behind it could very well be taken over, though, although it's a little bit disheartening that you really just aim for one combination and use 80% of the skills as stepping stones.

It can work, but will need much work to start off with a smaller skillset perhaps, but different classes to make for a full game.

The most viable would definitely be azalathemad so far. It's very simple, intuitive and can easily be expanded by adding or just removing a teammember or adding another item. The difficulty lies in enabling a different approach to things, even if it's just a slight difference on who to boost or whatever. If that isn't the case, then it'll be more of a puzzle rather than a battle.

Also, of course did I try healing them ;) I actually didn't notice the first time, since the upper text is a little bit cut off, but it's not that uncommon an effect, hehe.
That'd already make for a great setup I say.

Second, imho, would be The Campaign, as it focuses more on a subgrid, but it needs much balancing and work yet. Still, the idea is solid.
Although I'm not exactly sure where or how to place it.

Haven't played Essence Enforcer, but depending on how well it's executed, it's both viable for a party/character-creation focused game as well as a normal RPG.

There's plenty of possibilities, of course. Marrend's system is already well-known and used. It hasn't the most tactical focus, but it's quite fun in its own rights.

Karin's idea actually isn't all that bad, either. I'm not exactly sure how to make the CD's work there, but a strong passive stance that you cannot keep will (if balanced) make you adjust your strategy continously. Can be annoying for random encounters or plenty of battles.
The limited spell-selection is definitely not bad and could allow for some basic strategy planning, although it would still be lacking infight, since you already know exactly what sequence to use.
Got any Dexreth amulets?
I have a quick question: I just made a minor update to my entry (nothing extreme, just a few bug fixes and an attempt to prevent lag/crashing - I hope it helps). Am I allowed to put that updated version on my gamepage now or would that be against the rules?

Edit: Fun fact: The Campaign's battle system was (and still is) planned to be used in two larger projects. I'll have to improve it a lot until then, but participating in the RPGology contest has already had a massive positive effect on the concept, so thank you all for that.
I have a quick question: I just made a minor update to my entry (nothing extreme, just a few bug fixes and an attempt to prevent lag/crashing - I hope it helps). Am I allowed to put that updated version on my gamepage now or would that be against the rules?

All the judges have played your game already so feel free! As announced in the first post, we should be done by Wednesday (I'm actually the one lagging behind, but I have only two more to finish).

Also, Louis, your demo just doesn't work even with the new Graphics folder, as Merlandese wrote to you about some days ago. Since we haven't got any news from you, I'm putting your entry among latecomers instead, but we'll be glad to discuss it outside of the contest.
I've given a few entries a go. There's some interesting ideas here.

AegixDrakan's Delusions of Duty: It's a very good entry on it's own. It better captured the feeling of two (fictional) swordsmen fighting each other than any other turn based system I've seen. I am however questioning the flexibility of this system. Can you use it to create multiple different battles? Will it amount to more than finding a strong order of skills and trying to repeat them as often as possible? Is there also a good way to scale the number of skills down and then gradually unlocking more and more as the game goes on so to not overwhelm the player?

azalathemad's entry: So far the one who shows the most depth. It's a simple idea with many possible options. I can't tell for certain, but I think you could get it to work with many different setup of friendly and hostile monsters. I also think it's possible to create battles with multiple different strategies. It's all speculation though.

caparo's entry: Many different options, but I felt it just boiled down to finding whatever causes the most damage. You have a huge skill list, but very little depth.

Cap_H's Mace Blue Arena: Clicking the link gave me only jargon. 7z��'����'�u�����%�������!]�+�����x�����/!@qz_s�~�W��$�ї��Gx�bOCv��ď�p�F$м���?���/I��jn$���

Karin's soulkeeper's entry: I'm not a big fan of clicking wait until cooldowns goes down. The skill selection also seems too small. You win or lose entirely based on what you do between the battles, once a battle starts, the best tactic is obvious. I'm thinking that the cooldown system may have worked better with a bigger skill pool and multiple party members.

I think I'll cover the other entries later.
Cap_H's Mace Blue Arena: Clicking the link gave me only jargon. 7z��'����'�u�����%�������!]�+�����x�����/!@qz_s�~�W��$�ї��Gx�bOCv��ď�p�F$м���?���/I��jn$���

Right-clicking and saving as should allow you to get the file down properly. I don't know why the browser assumes .7z is a text file.
Cap_H's Mace Blue Arena: Clicking the link gave me only jargon. 7z��'����'�u�����%�������!]�+�����x�����/!@qz_s�~�W��$�ї��Gx�bOCv��ď�p�F$м���?���/I��jn$���
Right-clicking and saving as should allow you to get the file down properly. I don't know why the browser assumes .7z is a text file.

Yeah, It acts strange in Gecko-based browsers. It should work just fine with both Tident and WebKit.
Cap_H's Mace Blue Arena: This looked more like a joke than a serious entry. That or it's an experiment in how basic you can go. If it's the latter, it's too basic to do anything with.

Marrend's Oracle of Askigaga Duel test: Works as a minigame type of battle, but not as a main mean of combat, just like Suikoden handles it. There's no room for depth, either battles are random or the player is guaranteed to pick the right choice. It's also an unbalanced rock, paper and scissors type of system, defense is clearly the strongest option. You take half damage if you lose and deal twice if you win, or something like that.

In general, a rock, paper and scissors type of system is only meaningful if there a way to coerce the enemies into choosing or not choosing a certain type of option and doing so is a challenge. Alternatively, matching choices by itself is a challenge such as a tactical battle system where you may need clever positioning to be able to both hit the enemies with advantageous units and stop them from doing the same to you. Either way, by itself rock, paper and scissors doesn't leave any room for depth.

NeverSilent's The Campaign: I can see the idea working. I didn't go far, the game crashed and I didn't try again, but from what I've seen, the idea seems viable.

I would drop the whole "everyone has their unique system for determining what skills are available" idea. It's added complexity with no added yield in depth. One or two well thought trough different resource systems is better than five half assed ones. The idea with three front row characters fighting one on one with the enemies and two support looks really flexible though. The main advantage it has over the vanilla JRPG battle is that since you can't single out enemies one after another, you have to in a greater extent actually deal with the threat they poses. That and the no easy healing. I can see a lot of potential from it.

If you were to make a full game out of it, then either battles need to be shorter or you need to make sure it's very reactive. The latter means that even if you're fighting the same set of enemies round six as you did the previous five rounds, you are forced to react to different threats since the enemies choose different actions. Pulling something like that off does seem easier with your battle system than the vanilla JRPG battle system.
The Judges have spoken.

Okay so we're all finished now!

Question: who would want to have feedback in private, rather than having our opinions on their game posted in public?

(in any case we will announce the podium here and on the contest page, but with or without scores and comments depending on what the gamemakers want)
Question: who would want to have feedback in private, rather than having our opinions on their game posted in public?

Public away, my friend! :D
Got any Dexreth amulets?
I'm prepared for anything ;)
Sure, go ahead and post in public. I don't mind.

Edit: Oh, and thanks for the feedback, Crystalgate! I'll keep your comments in mind.
This is just an experiment for you and for us, so public would be alright. If I made a mistake public exposure would also help other developers to avoid it. So yeah, go ahead, and congratulations beforehan to the winner! :)
Hasvers> Go ahead, shoot!
Give me everything ;)

Crystalgate> Thanks for the feedback!
Yeah, you mentioned two of the three issues that I failed to resolve before I submitted my entry. These would be Balancing, Skill Pool, and Organisation.
I'll take note of what you said.
The Judges have spoken.Okay so we're all finished now!

Question: who would want to have feedback in private, rather than having our opinions on their game posted in public?

(in any case we will announce the podium here and on the contest page, but with or without scores and comments depending on what the gamemakers want)

I've managed to try out everyone's games.

But after reading through the comments, I found that I don't have anything else to add. What's needed to be said had already been said.

Either way, it's great seeing everyone's ideas in action!

Yep, for me, playing games is more fun than making games :)
rosesarecrimson's Queen of the Ring: I got no explanation to what the different states you could inflict does and had no idea what the different moves does other than some being more effective than others. I ended up winning by using nothing but hook. If this system even has tactics to it, I didn't discover any.

Treason89's 3xT: The elemental system has the most potential in my mind. One advantage it has is that it affects defense while you're using offensive skills. If you expand the system and increase the number of available vanilla and unleash skills, you may have a system that requires planning. One problem I noticed though is that either the enemies have a balanced lineup, in which case the choice of elements doesn't matter, or they are stronger in certain elements and the right choice is obvious. Perhaps having enemies that can switch elemental property like the player would work better?

The DoT system doesn't look like it could work in a varied amount of battles. It's also not believable in the sense that it's hard to imagine the different formulas as actual combat moves. I can imagine a wizard throwing a fireball on a monster, but I can't imagine a warrior having one move that does linear damage, one that does exponential, one that does logarithmic and so on.

The light and lenses system also look limited to very specific situations and doesn't seem useful in a full game. It also has the added problem that you need two commands to take one single action, although your choice of lenses also seem to have defensive applications as well, so I guess it's two commands for one action and one reaction. Finally, while more a problem of implementation that the system itself, it was very unclear what was going on. I'll elaborate upon request.

LouisCyphre's Essence Enforcer: It seemed to lack a graphic file even after I overwrote the graphics folder with whatever I was supposed to overwrite it with. Sadly, I did not get it to work.
Well, passing by to say that I was amazed by Azalathemad entry. It was so, unexpected. I saw many good comments about it and after playing it I would highlight the weapon swapping (leaves me thinking) and the "I can do my move on everybody" (pretty interesting).

Crystalgate, thank you very much for your thoughts about my entry. I'll use them to improve as much as I can.
The results are here:

Gold: Azalathemad
Silver: Aegix_Drakan
Bronze: NeverSilent

Congratulations and thanks to everyone who took part in the contest!

The total scores are below, and now judges will post their comments if they so wish (mine are coming in the next message).

Azalathemad - 236
Aegix_Drakan - 172
NeverSilent - 161
Karin's Soulkeeper - 141
3xT: Elements- 127
3xT: DoT - 122
caparo - 120
3xT: Lens - 97
Cap_H - 96
Marrend - 92

rosesarecrimson - not judged because it seems the implementation is not working according to the ideas
LouisCyphre - not working at all
Also, the winners should contact me about their prizes, priority will be given to azala, then aegix, then NS.

My comments are below. Many things have been said already in this topic already. My overall impression is that this contest created a tension between three tendencies - one toward creativity, one toward minimalism, and one toward depth (often misunderstood as sheer complexity). Entries roughly fall in three tiers:
- those that followed a single tendency, and are thus proofs of concept rather than viable systems
- those that followed two tendencies at once but couldn't quite manage the last one
- and the unique entry that did a good job in every aspect.
The winner was thus rather easily decided, I think!

Edit: My opinions are written quite plainly because I hope earnest opinions will help everyone improve, but I really mean no harm. I am glad for every participation that was made to this contest, as every one had at least one interesting idea, even when it was underdeveloped. Please accept my apologies if you feel wronged, and do not hesitate to defend your positions ;)

Aegix - Delusions of Duty

Originality 13: The fact that you fight with equal means and the use of partially hidden information about the adversary (through Sense and stances) are very interesting, and indeed creates a feeling of duelling.

Elegance 13: Boiling it down to a game of parries, counter-attacks and seizing the opportunity for a devastating strike was very pleasant. You lose points for a certain abundance of lesser skills that are a bit redundant or useful mostly as padding while you try to get the better ones, and the rather random unlocking patterns - some theme justifying these patterns would have been helpful for memorization.

Clarity 14: Difficult to plan without constantly switching between menus to check the effet of each skill; some visual aid or a more intuitive skill design (more indicative names, or classifying them further by what they do) would have helped; still, Sense and stances were a nice way to communicate informations about the adversary, and a general sense

Depth 15 : The tactics boil down to one main tension: building up better skills on one hand, while countering or avoiding the enemy's most dangerous maneuvers on the other hand. There is a lot of potential, but the system deserves more refinement: in many cases, one can afford to only passingly take into account what the enemy is doing, and use lesser skills a little haphazardly just to unlock a better one. It lacks in global buildup throughout the battle - effects stack over multiple turns which can create interesting situations, but every five turns or so, everything is roughly back to normal, with only a resulting advantage in HP.

Bonus: 5 for getting the duel aspect right.
Total: 60
There is the potential for great depth, but it's not exactly there right now. Press on the importance of proper countering, find a better logic for the unlocking (though the duality between Offense and Support skills, tending to unlock each other, was a really nice touch) and some way for some past actions to remain important throughout the battle rather than only a couple of turns - or use this system only for much shorter battles.

Azala -

Originality 15: The item swapping is perhaps the only idea that's new on its own, but the way that usual ingredients wereput together (like the importance of hitting your allies) was really interesting.

Elegance 21: With only two simple mechanisms and a single action per character, an impressive amount of synergy is found here. Characters are perhaps not equally useful, but still, if this system is anything, it's elegant.

Clarity 19: The interface is slightly unwieldy, but apart from that, it took me only a couple of turns to start realizing what this was all about, and how I should start planning my moves.

Depth 18: Some elements of truly "emergent" depth are clearly there, through the possibility of achieving multiple things in a single action, and finding unexpected uses of the characters. The battle is more a sort of puzzle than an example of general strategic possibilities, but it's still satisfying.

Bonus: 10 for audacity and for getting all three pillars of the contest right (originality, minimalism and depth)
Total: 83
This text-based entry came entirely out of the left field, and did exactly what I was hoping from this contest: using few ingredients in an original way that creates variety and depth through combination and thinking, rather than endless lists of skills and stats.

caparo - Battle system experiment

Originality 5: No ingredient was really original as such, though more focus on states like chill could have created a new dynamic, if we really had to care about them.

Elegance 5: I'm sorry to say it looks a little bit as if you used every single mechanics you could find at once - too many ingredients, with too little difference between them. And as often, the skill categories are rather vague flavors instead of pushing toward different playstyles.

Clarity 10: While the skill descriptions and little symbols helped somewhat, everything blended together and it was difficult to know why some attack was more efficient at any given point or plan anything.

Depth 10: There may be some ways to do clever tricks with all that, I did once or twice. But in the end, spamming powerful skills was enough to overcome anything.

Bonus: 5 There's something real nifty underneath.
Total: 35
I think you've got the overgrown version of a *much* better system.

Maybe my scores are a bit harsh, but while as such this is a more viable battle system than some entries I ranked higher, it is less interesting as a contest entry because it lacks direction.
A system with so many redundancies is very hard to read for the player, and to balance for the maker, resulting in Spam for Win. Trim it down to the point where you (and we) can carefully orchestrate the interactions between skills to obtain complex and unique action paths, and you'd probably double that score ;)

Cap_H - Mace Blue Arena

Originality 10: It's audacious to have only 1HP and I enjoyed that move.
Elegance 5: There's something to say about having an almost minimal number of commands, but they should have some sort of combinations or something. I really hoped that, at least, charging twice would do something.
Clarity 5: There's no way to know if an enemy can or will attack next turn, so no real way to plan anything. The player is really left in the dark.
Depth 5: There's really nothing to do except hope that the enemy will be charging next time I attack.

Bonus: 3 for taking the "minimalistic" part seriously.
Total: 25
Now I didn't expect *that* degree of minimalism :P Really, this feels like the bare start of a system. What comes next may become interesting though.

Karin's Soulkeeper - Karin's Battle System

Originality 9: Inklings of potentially interesting play with cooldowns, unfortunately very limited. Also, having to take into account the next battle due to not being able to reuse the same strategy was a nice point, although it would be better if it weren't such a New Game+ thing (i.e. if there were some way to plan over multiple battles from the first time, and perhaps select their order accordingly)

Elegance 16: it's really elegant to use only the combinatorics of one strategy and three skills (plus potentially choosing the same one multiple times), and I would really like to see this refined. Right now however, I'm really not sure what role Lightning was supposed to play, the buffs/debuffs were occasionally useful but not enough, and the master skills were redundant (the instadeath was total overkill).

Clarity 14: On my first playthrough I felt a bit at a loss on how to evaluate the value of each skill in a given situation. On the second, I discovered that I could equip the same skill multiple times and wanted to hit myself in the face. From then on, and thanks to the battle tips, I was quite able to figure how to overcome the enemies.

Depth 8: Figuring out which strategy/skills combination is optimal for a given battle requires a little thought, but once it's done, the battle is pretty straightforward, because there's not much building up occurring during it. It really lacks player skills that affect cooldown (ours or the enemy's) as well as interactions between skills. Spamming the most powerful attack is still too important.

Bonus: 6 There's the potential for a very nice reduction of RPGs' usually tiresome pre-battle minimaxing
Total: 53
I think this is quite complementary with other ideas here: it's a step in the right direction for the pre-battle thing (though it needs balancing and refining) but the battles themselves are very bland. The foremost problem is that it's still too close to "one goal=one action" - if you can find a way to have skill effects somehow combine to become more than the sums of their parts, you may be on the way of something really good.
PS: Loved the cows :P

Marrend - OoA Duel

Originality 1: Almost the exact same system existed in Suikoden
Elegance 5: It's a rock-paper-scissors, which is pretty elegant for what it's worth, but I cannot really give you credit for that.
Clarity 10: Although we're told that different enemies have different preferences, it's not very useful. I guess the game is in a sense *too* clear, since we're basically told how to win every turn.
Depth 5: The messages given by the enemies are transparent so you just have to do the right actions.

Bonus: 2 for trying to make some AI, even if it doesn't really impact the game.
Total: 23
Winning is just so straightforward right now, and it's still so close to the Suikoden system, that I cannot really consider this as a useful contribution to the contest, even if it works as part of your game.

NeverSilent - The Campaign

Originality 13: The importance of position was nice, especially the Support/Front alternation with changing skills. Some skills also have interesting trappings. Other than that, many common ingredients.

Elegance 12: Using position to decide which enemy is affected by skills AND to lock/unlock skills through the front row/back row was a nifty move. On the other hand, most skills didn't seem that useful, some characters were completely useless

Clarity 8: It didn't take long to figure the main mechanisms for the battle in general and for each character in particular. On the other hand, the effect of buffs/debuffs was almost impossible to decipher, the conditions for inflicting injuries and using Quarter mage spells as well. I had the feeling that there might be clever things to do, but I never was able to find anything beyond a two-step process like using Surgical Strike then spamming Bloodshed.

Depth 11: The only aspect that really granted some depth was swapping the characters around. Buffs/debuffs really didn't do much. The best I could come up was a two-step process like inflicting an injury then using bloodshed.

Bonus: 7 (including 1 for terrible puns in skill names, because I'm weak like that)
Total: 51
A slight evolution rather than a revolution, but an interesting one. With some work, this could become a good variant on the RPG formula, requiring to swap characters around a lot and so on. Seeing how difficult it is to find characters clearly useful and to build synergies here, I still think you have too many ingredients in this for now - IMHO, you should start by trying out a simpler, barebones gameplay that works well on its own, then construct characters progressively to fit specific roles and open new options, without rushing into the specifics of buffs, points for actions (like Bulwark) and so on that will require further balancing.

rosesarecrimson - Queen of the Ring

I think the system is simply not working right now, due to problems of implementation. As such, I feel I cannot give a fair judgement of the ideas behind the game. That's too bad, because the principles of distance, HP=MP and limb-based skills were cool! This could have been something like the RPG equivalent of Toribash ;)

Treason89 - 3xT

3xT: Seiken (Dragons and Damage over time)

Originality 13: It's a funny thing to say, but while damage evolution over time is far from new, no one really explored various functional forms for it.

Elegance 14: It represents an aspect of RPG battles, the way that buffs/weaknesses/combos can stack to create a progression in damage per turn, while abstracting from the specifics of those usual ingredients. Having to repeat a skill again and again as the main mode of action is however quite inelegant.

Clarity 14: If anything, it's very straightforward to figure what one skill is going to do when you've used it once against a given enemy. But the grounds for choosing that skill rather than another are more a case of "guess what the author had in mind" than cleverness.

Depth 4: There could be something deep here. What you're doing is essentially playing a car race on the HP bar and controlling the pedals, which can be cool. The problem is that there's almost no point in changing skills mid-battle here. they don't interact, there's no way to affect the enemy's output or to slow down (and no point to the latter).

Bonus: 3 It really feels like part of a good system - but just a part.
Total: 48
While it's not really interesting in the battles that are proposed, the basis for this is actually sound. I want to see it implemented in a smoother way and as part of something bigger, where switching between behaviors is actually really needed.

3xT: Almadana (elements)

Originality 8: Elements. Once again they are three flavors for the same spells (think Mass Effect 3 ending). Some novelty in the way using one element blocks another, though.

Elegance 5: The elements are pretty much unnecessary in the end - they occupy your mind a whole 10 seconds while you try to guess which enemy is sensitive to which element, then you're set.

Clarity 12: The formula of win below was trivial to guess. Whether it's a good or a bad thing is a matter of perspective - I suppose as part of a larger system, this kind of clarity would be useful.

Depth 4: Use element 1 thrice, then element 2 twice, then element 3 thrice, then ultimate skill. Lather, rinse and repeat.

Bonus: 2 Tradeoffs should be cultivated.
Total: 31
As such, nothing much to see in my opinion, unless I missed something. If the elements actually corresponded to different modes of action (perhaps introducing things from the other two systems here), it could become interesting.

3xT: Prysmatic (Lens)

Originality 13: The idea of some physics-inspired combinatoric mechanism made me all giddy with anticipation. On the other hand, past that, the actual effects are quite unoriginal.

Elegance 12: Reducing it all to the manipulation of a single object (the lens) is very elegant in principle; too bad that not much follows from it.

Clarity 5: The lens image in the top right corner was really useful, but apart from that, I had the hardest time understanding what to do and how to do it.

Depth 5: Once the trick has been figured out, not much to do except attack until you win.

Bonus: 7 For SCIENCE
Total: 42
I would absolutely love to see this system, or a system like this one, done thoroughly. With a more intuitive meaning to the states of the lens (or whatever main object is being manipulated by the characters), and more interactions. As it stands, though, it's a bit underwhelming. But I really want to encourage your for attempting to do something radically different.


My notes (not with the creators in mind, so if you want some more details on things, please go ahead and ask!). I also evaluated for points the idea rather than its implementation.

I'll keep it as a big blob, so this doesn't go to the next page just yet. Bear with me.

The CD system as well as general buffs, debuffs are not very original, but it is notable that you are forced to change your general setup as you cannot have a stance twice in a row.

Stances are imbalanced, though, and you can go with defensive and agile alone, for example.
There are too few spellslots with too similar spells. Buffs and debuffs do not work, simple as that. Aside from the speed buff, which only messes with who gets the first attack per turn, I couldn't find any difference. The damage taken and done were the exact same. There were a few variations in the skeletons' attack though.

It boiled down to spam attack or wait for ultimate attack. Either way, the most useful setup was to stack the firespell and take perhaps one freeze dot for anything other than agile.
No variation, no different tactic for bosses, bosses themselves imbalanced.

It was a very simple and straightforward design with an easily memorizable set up skills, but it didn't have any depth as it is.

(could be made viable with more skill-, partycreation and balancing)

AegixDrakan: Delusions of Duty

going toward duel-type with the same range of spells as the enemy, with predictable/learnable pattern. Although there isn't too much to memorize or to react upon.

The system of locking unlocking is very straightforward, but the huge spellpool (+ the separation supp/off in two windows) made it very difficult to memorize them at first, but that could be replaced with tutorials.
My main concern is that plenty of spells are obsolete, weaker than spells they unlock and generally just a stepping stone towards good spells.

The "ultimate" attack of sorts + stun combo was what you were aiming for, and if you just used everything needed to get there and repeat you were the most effective. Rush would've been a possibility, but the enemy is smart enough to block it.
You can keep up parry most of the time, debuffs do have a use, but they are just spice, not meat.
Blocking enemy spells seemed to have no impact at all, aside from suckering him to attack now and then, which is no real advantage, as you could've attacked or buffed instead.

A positive thing is that there are multiple ways to unlock the same skill, so you have a wider range of possible tactics, although, as I mentioned already, most lower skills are not your main concern.
The defensive boost was too strong, imho, as it blocked most of the enemies' attack entirely and could be kept up almost constantly.

Guard was only useful against rush, you could barely predict negative status effects, so that did not come into play.

Overall, intuitive, unlocking is interesting, but one coretactic to apply still.

Cap_H Mace Blue Arena

There is charge, guard and attack. Easy and intuitive, yet since your enemy does not need to charge in order to attack, it comes down to 50% waiting around and 50% luck.

There is no tactic to apply aside from "guard until attack" -> "charge" -> "guard until attack" -> "attack/wait a turn, then attack"

It boils down to luck. The enemies can attack multiple times in a row, or keep guarding, or charging, so .. really no way to know a thing. It's just the one formula over and over again until it works.

Intuitive, clear, but no depth or tactic of any kind to be had. Original? Perhaps.

Marrend - Test Duel

Ripped concept from the Suikoden series

Stone - paper - scissors concept predicted by enemy talk

Very clear and intuitive, but far too linear and easy. Mistakes are not punished, feints are very clear and only one character has two possible options for a certain line of dialogue (in which case guard does the trick for both, playing it safe)

The battles are far too long for mistakes to matter or for you to need to figure out the dialogue lines asap.
Little depth, although thinking short-term required.

rosesarecrimson Queen of the Ring

There isn't much to say as the battle system is not complete.
The different spell categories in the limbs that are used makes it very hard to get a grasp for what skills you actually have, and since both status effect and close-combat vs. more distant combat which this system seems to build on do not work, it's spam your strongest attack and win.

Guarding or evasion seems to have no positive side whatsover, as you lose hp using them, not much more than you would take anyway.

The stamina effect decreasing over time is a very good touch, though, as it renders infinitly long battles impossible.

Treason89 2xT

Interesting concepts, which a few nice touches, none of which I can really find that appealing.


The dots are a nice variation of currently used ones, although ignoring armor is not that new. However, the exponential one just boils down to "waiting for the special certain death superattack", rendering the actualy description and damage done useless.

It comes down to use the right dot for the right monster, which isn't that different from elements. The need to spam it over and over prolongs the battles needlessy, too.


The spellsystem with affinity is not a bad touch, but as you can unlock an ultimate spell (and should do so), you just align your spell usage to that, use the ultimate and other unleash spells and then spam the elemental weakness on whatever may be left.

It doesn't offer much depth short or longterm as it is the usual elemental weakness + super ultimate

It's much more straight forward than the dot system, mainly due to some confusing names. Potential - Exponential, for example. It's still more complex than need be and it doesn't help that the tutorials aren't written that well (becoming apparant in number 3)


The idea is a tagteam attack, but it really boils down to complicating normal attacks. You have no idea what does what until you memorized it (I admit I did not properly notice the mirror on the top right, though, without which you are doomed to hit yourself to death)
.. and even then, all you do are normal attacks on single enemies or an enemy group.

The tutorial also neglects to mention that you choose with lenses to equip/unequip - and that they will stay if not chosen differently, but that doesn't harm the actual system.

It's counterintuitive, overly complex, but without depth and anything new to add to combat. You just hit enemies, done.

azalathemad - battle

Simple textbased system. One action per character, different characters and status.
Revolves around shifting items around your team and enemies - possibly "destroying" them by defeating someone wearing one.
Employs usual character differences (healing undead = dmg)

Extremely intuitive, simple and deep. You need to think both short and longterm and do have multiple choices to swap around those items (although some are more viable than others. You don't want to hurt the lich you can't heal, for example)

And more importantly, this system can easily be changed, adjusted and deepend by removing or adding team members, or by adding just one new item.
With more items, you could, for example need to either juggle around an item which brings debuffs, or kill one of your party members off to have it gone.

While it is more a puzzle to solve, there is a little bit variation possible and, it is easily expandably.

Very elegant design.

caparo: Battle System Experiment

CD System + charge for stronger ones, while applying bonus damage for status effects.

There are quite a lot of spells, but they are all rather easy to understand, however, most do the same thing in green. They allow for variation from chilled to burning, but essentially not doing much different. There are buffs/debuffs, too, none of which affect your strategy greatly.

The idea is to charge for strong attacks consistently, applying the status effects you want and then exploiting those.
However, the bonus is too meager to matter much. You don't need to form any special tactic, not even shortterm (perhaps - applying burning with char 1 and using burning special with char 2)

It was generally too easy and too slow for tactic to really matter.

It's a mix of generally known ideas, rather intuitive, but does not allow for or require much planning, tactical forming or generally thinking.

NeverSilent - The Campaign

Employs a battle grid + support characters. Instead of ganging up upone one enemy, it's a row of fights which is certainly realistic and thus intuitive.

As it is, however, it's very imbalanced and results to 3 parallel fights which don't really need any help.
Most support skills are weak or have only limited use (like the hunter's trap preventing movement, if no enemy ever moved, why do that!)
The tank and battle axe characters are both very strong, but their stacking effect are a building up and wait for the special attack kind.
The support of team members next to them is interesting, but not exploited and certainly not needed as it is.

Characters are more or less unique with some CDs applied. It doesn't add any tactic, though.
They have generally too much HP, though, you don't even need to switch anyone, nor go full-force.

The build in itself offers potential if you are required to support your teammates properly and have more crosstactics, but it's more a core than anything else.

Azalathemad: 78
Aegix_Draken: 61
NeverSilent: 59
Karn's Soulkeeper: 55
3xT Spell: 37
Cap_H: 37
Marrend: 36
3xT Dot: 35
caparo: 30
3xT Lens: 17
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!