HOW MUCH SHOULD ONE CRANK UP THE DIFFICULTY BEFORE IT'S TOO MUCH? (GAME DIFFICULTY BALANCING)

Posts

Think of extra layers of difficulty, not just battles. I'm playing Unlimited SaGa right now, and I was just lost in a dungeon. Even though most fights are easy, I was continually using up my weapons' durability. And even though you can recover HP whenever you want in that game, I would occasionally take a Life Point hit, and LP can't be recovered. With no Inns and no Saving, I was starting to feel the pressure.
author=iddalai
That's one thing that bothers me, big game devs can do that, but we can't.

Those games are fun, but ours suddenly aren't if we do the same?

It just confirms to me that enjoyment depends on your mindset.


I feel LockeZ really hit the nail on the head when it comes to my dilemma. I made the problem of imitating the gradual build-up that big-name devs do. What is implied from LockeZ's statement is interesting: the reason why the big-name devs can get away with some things and we can't, is because of the fact that most of our games are free and theirs are not.

When someone spends money on a game, they've invested in it, and they're going to play it a bit. Even if it's not any good. They'll play it in hopes that it "gets better." You'll hear people talk about a new big-name RPG release and say "it gets better a few hours in." They'll never say that about a free RPG Maker game, though.

Of course I still think we have a lot of nice benefits, being indie devs. Once money is involved, expectations get higher. When an indie developer makes an RPG Maker game and it lasts 20 hours, they made a HUGE game. When a big-name company makes a 40 hour RPG, they made a standard game. It's kinda' sucks for them, but it's one of the little things we don't need to worry about at least. The big-name guys, however, have to pad all of that space: add a crafting system that gets the player traveling the world and doing the same things in the hopes of an upgrade drop, for example, or my all time favorite: extra-long battle animations, because they know all of that time adds up, easily packing hours onto a game's length (*cough*KnightsoftheRound*cough*).
author=iddalai
That's one thing that bothers me, big game devs can do that, but we can't.

Those games are fun, but ours suddenly aren't if we do the same?

It just confirms to me that enjoyment depends on your mindset.

FF V and XIII aren't really fun until the game unlocks the gameplay properly. I've seen people making statements in line of "FF XIII gets fun ten hours in". It's not so that big budget games are fun when they delay introducing the proper gameplay while free games are not, it's rather that with big budget games, the player is more likely to stick until the game gets better. As for FF VI and DQ 3, those games work just fine even before you get access to espers/class change.
Honestly "the big guys get away with this" is not a good reason not to put some effort into your battle difficulty balance.

I personally criticize many games for the lack of the encounter variance, both AAA titles and RPG Maker games. But when I look at the games that got it right, it's still more AAA titles than RPG Maker games (or I just didn't play the right ones).

The biggest difference however is, that with RPG Maker games I might be able to have some influence. I could convince the dev that his battles are boring and get him to actually put some effort in. On the other hand, writing Square Enix an e-mail on how they should make more than 3 different encounters per area because it's boring otherwise will probably not cause them to reconsider all their future games. Not to mention that AAA titles are often limited by their funding and timelines rather than their lack of game design skills.

As for how a good difficulty growth should be like... I'd say it should be a logarithmic curve.

The game can start easy and not require any skills from the player at first. This is to get him into the story. You might think right away making the first battle challenging is a good idea, but you know what? If I play a game and die at the first few battles, I'll probably rage quit and never look back (happened to me to games I paid for too, I'm looking at you Dragon Quarter). However if I already got a bit into the game and then die at the second boss I'm much more likely to try again.

The game shouldn't stay easy for too long, however. Because what the game really should do is a) challenge my skills and b) prepare me for even harder challenges. If the whole game didn't require any skills ever, I probably have just used normal attacks throughout the game. I never really bothered using skills or even learning which skills are good against what or checked if there are any cool combinations I could exploit, simply because it wasn't necessary. If then you suddenly put a final dungeon that is much harder than all the rest, it hits me completely unprepared and will feel way too unfair. Games often do that lately and you know what I did? I watched the ending on youtube for all these games.

So in short, make the game start easy, make it get challenging fast, then only increase the challenge slightly with each dungeon, so it's hardly noticable (technically the player shouldn't notice it at all because his skills with the game should be growing at the same pace).

But as said earlier. It should be more about the correct strategies and less about giving monsters higher stats.
iddalai
RPG Maker 2k/2k3 for life, baby!!
1194
author=Crystalgate
FF V and XIII aren't really fun until the game unlocks the gameplay properly.


That's the thing. I enjoyed both games right from the start, I had no issues with them starting slower, I enjoyed them all the same. They were fun for me right from the start, FFV more so than FFXIII though.

If these games like FFV, FFVI & DQ3 got it wrong then why do most of us replay them to death? Surely not because we bought them at some point, we more than justified their purchase by now, so why keep on replaying them?

We like how these games were made. Hence we play them.

author=RyaReisender
Honestly "the big guys get away with this" is not a good reason not to put some effort into your battle difficulty balance


No one is saying it's a reason not to put effort into battle balance.

All I'm saying is the real issue is in the players mind, not really the games.

I'm all for balancing, but a player that won't play your game if the battles start too slow, probably wouldn't play your game regardless.
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
Yeah. It's much easier to enjoy games like that with the extended gameplay-free hour-long introduction when you're already mentally invested in them. It's not "wrong" to have that downtime, but it's something you can't do in a free game until after you've gotten the player invested in your game.

If you buy a game, that mental investment happens at or before the moment of purchase. If you've played and enjoyed a game before, you're already invested in it from that previous experience. If it's a sequel, or part of a series, you're invested because of the fun you had with the previous game. But if you download a free game that's not part of a series you like, there's a 99% chance you are uninvested until the game hooks you. Every second the player is playing your game for the first hour or so, they're on the verge of quitting.
author=iddalai
If these games like FFV, FFVI & DQ3 got it wrong then why do most of us replay them to death? Surely not because we bought them at some point, we more than justified their purchase by now, so why keep on replaying them?

We like how these games were made. Hence we play them.

I already stated that I have no problem with DQ3 and FFVI. Class changing and espers are nowhere as integral to those games as the job system in FFV is. As for FF V, that game unlocks the class change very quickly. Had that game, say stuck you with one class for the first 8 hours, I would not have liked it nearly as much and I suspect the same would go for a lot of other FF V fans.

Now for FF XIII, it's a very common complaint that the game takes way to long to hand the player the reins. I do not think that it would have been less popular had that game been quicker at unlocking stuff. Rather, I suspect that a lot of people who like FF XIII like it in spite of the snail phase start rather than because of it. There are obviously exception, but I believe it's exactly that, exceptions.
iddalai
RPG Maker 2k/2k3 for life, baby!!
1194
author=Crystalgate
As for FF V, that game unlocks the class change very quickly. Had that game, say stuck you with one class for the first 8 hours, I would not have liked it nearly as much and I suspect the same would go for a lot of other FF V fans.


True, but the job system IS what FFV is all about, so they didn't take too long.
Even still, I enjoyed playing that first bit as much as what followed.

author=Crystalgate
Rather, I suspect that a lot of people who like FF XIII like it in spite of the snail phase start rather than because of it.


Oh yes, I'm not saying those early slow bits draw more players, all I'm saying is I actually enjoy them despite being slower.
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
This topic has been pretty well hijacked at this point
iddalai
RPG Maker 2k/2k3 for life, baby!!
1194
Then let's get it back on track.

author=Gredge109
So the question now is, how do you balance your non-boss battles?


It depends on the type of game and target players.
Are you going for a hard game? An easy game?
Will random battles be accessible, but boss battles will be ruthless?
Are items easy to get? A necessity?
Do players need to grind to play the game?
When it comes to challenge there's no guideline since it really depends on the player. For some people "Ghosts and Goblins" is a really easy game...

I like having different types of enemies in each area, a big threat enemies that requires some strategy to beat, some cannon fodder enemies (easy to kill non-threatening), some middle tier enemies (not weak but not too strong).

The rate at which each enemy may appear is the same. Except for some rare enemies.

Also, some different enemies in parties complement each other, alone they may be middle tier, but together they become a threat since their skills work well together (i.e.: strong physical attacker + increase physical attack buff).

I like the advice by StandardFiend. A balance of easy/hard battles seems like a solid approach.

author=Gredge109
How do I get the price just right for items in my shop? How many gold do the enemies drop? That sorta' stuff.


You start by deciding the price of some common items.
Consider players can buy AND sell these for money.
Then base your other prices on those prices.
Items you want the player to buy easily should be cheaper, and item you don't want the player to buy as often should be more expensive.
Better items are usually more expensive, exceptions would be rare items that you don't want the player to sell and therefore give them a low price (but won't be available in shops).
And test lots to make sure battles give a good amount of money and increase/decrease money drop accordingly.
Mixing easy and hard encounters is actually pretty good idea. If I think about Phantasy Star II for example, they were some enemies that were significantly harder than others, either because they dealt pretty deadly damage or because they hardly took any damage from normal attacks. When I ran into those I was always "oh shi--- better use my best skills on those". That gave it a nice change from always just using normal attack and conserving MP for healing.

It depends a little bit on style though. I personally don't really like the "resource management" approach too much and rather have each encounter itself be the challenge and put stuff like "Full recovery after every battle" and "Save anywhere" into the game instead. For those games I rather would not see completely easy encounters. But of course you can always do a mix of encounters that require strategies the player already knows and encounters that require to learn a new strategy to win.

Regarding shop prices. I REALLY dislike it when games work like this:

Do dungeon -> Reach new town -> Buy all new equip for each character from gold earned in dungeon -> Do next dungeon

Because you will just buy all the equip when reaching a new town, it becomes completely meaningless. Might as well not put any shops.

What I like a lot more is when each shop has a "personality". A new town shouldn't mean one new weapon of each type for each character. The offers should be more characteristic for the town. Like that town of lumberjacks offers a really good axe, while the town of hunters has a really good bow. That castle of magician sells interesting rods. And when that is set up, the prices should be higher than what the player can afford when reaching the town first.

Doing it like this changes the flow to:

Do dungeon -> Reach new town -> Check what the town has to offers and only buy a few things you can afford yet -> Go to next dungeon -> Explore and realize you get to a point you can't continue yet -> Return to town -> Buy some better equips you can now afford from venturing to the dungeon -> Go to dungeon again -> Feel how the weapon makes you stronger -> Clear dungeon

As for healing items... I generally like the approach to make them cheap but strongly limit their amounts. Like in Secret of Mana where you could only hold 9 healing items of a type at the same time. Beating a dungeon with limited resources feels much more like an accomplishment than grinding gold for hundreds of potions and then clear the dungeon just by using a large amount.
piemunch
i desperately need for everyone to know that i hate Undertale
0
Lo and behold, a thread goes into delusional liars who've never played a game complaining about it and regurgitating the usual bullshit.

I wonder why anyone would ever want to make games with people like that.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=piemunch
Lo and behold, a thread goes into delusional liars who've never played a game complaining about it and regurgitating the usual bullshit.

I wonder why anyone would ever want to make games with people like that.

You talk an awful lot of smack for someone who just got here. This isn't your first rodeo, is it?
There's only one delusional individual in this thread.

I haven't been here very long, but long enough to know that the collection of individuals posting in this thread, the same who take time from their lives and projects to post in so many threads on this forum, my own included, are both knowledgeable and wise and come from considerable experience. Newbies here would do well to heed them.

Anyway, I think Rya's example of pacing is spot on. However, I would have to disagree about items.

I think that the Bare Necessities, at least, should be plentiful and, while not dirt-cheap, relatively affordable. One way to think about it is in terms of the cost of each battle. What resources must the player consume to recoup the expenses of each fight? If the player must give a healing item to each of his characters after a fight, then the rewards for that battle must approach that cost, either as healing items as drops or as enough money to buy more healing items. Maybe not on a 1-for-1 basis in every case, but over time the player should be able to see a gradual rise in both inventory stock and leftover funds -- both are part of the rise in power you want the player to experience. If he wants to bring 99 of the base healing item everywhere and spam them outside of battle to conserve MP, let him do it. By the time he can afford to restock that many items, their efficiency will no longer be as relevant as it used to be, therefore keeping the challenge ratio in tact.
It isn't that the game is easy or hard, but the LTer thought some of the features were pointless. Balance the game better in a way that requires the player to use all gameplay elements skillfully. If you can't figure out how, cut the gameplay element entirely.
However, I would have to disagree about items.

Okay, from your paragraph below I see that you are mostly agreeing except that you wouldn't strongly limit the number of healing items someone can carry at the same time. May I ask why you think this is better, though?

I feel limiting these items is what makes games like Secret of Mana a lot more exciting, because you never know if you still have enough items left for the boss.

In other games I feel like I just have unlimited of these eventually except for those I can't buy. But if you make those you can't buy mandatory, you can get the player into a "stuck" situation which you probably wouldn't want. Using more buyable items only comes down to "If you use more then you'll have to grind longer for gold", I'm not sure if I see the benefit from that.
There is no one specific way to handle items. However, if you do allow the player to carry 99 of every potion and ether, why not just make HP and MP refill after every battle? The player will not run out of healing, MP typically takes the role of something that hinders you from spamming the most expensive stuff, but you nevertheless are almost insured to have it if you need it.

There are exceptions, but this is typically how it works if the player can stock up 99 of every item. Check; is your game really an exception? If not, then I see little point in not refilling all HP and MP after every battle.

Anyway, if you are wondering how hard you should make the game, first consider how the player can combat the higher difficulty. In an action game, if a difficulty makes enemies deal twice the damage they normally do, this means you have to play better so you get hit only half as often or less. However, is this even possible in your RPG?

Figure out what the player can do to reduce or prevent incoming damage. Now, the more preventable an attack is, the more you can increase its power without making the game unreasonable. Unpreventable attacks reduced to whatever the player can reduce it to are mandatory damage.

If you raise the enemy stats across the board, you will raise both preventable and mandatory damage. The player can do nothing about the mandatory damage itself, but it can compensate by better avoiding the preventable damage so the mandatory damage doesn't become overwhelming. If you haven't planned the game well, the preventable and mandatory damage can be haphazardly distributed. One troop could have only preventable damage while the other deals almost entirely mandatory damage.

Let's say your game is considered to easy. Both troops are equally hard since the player doesn't bother avoiding the preventable damage, there's no point to it. So, you raise stats of all enemies to make them harder. This is all good for the first troop since the player can avoid that extra damage it deals. However, the second troop is now unreasonable hard. Worst case scenario, you can make a game where either the player has no reason to bother using tactics or the game is too hard even if the player do use good tactics.

This is an extreme example since a troop rarely have entirely mandatory damage. Even so, I have seen a lot of RPGs where there are some encounters which you can more or less shut down entirely while others there is very little you can do, you win because the game gives you the numbers needed to win.
Thanks everyone. These have been great contributions and I can't respond to them all. Most everything has been great, except for a couple posts (*cough* piemunch).


iddalai
It depends on the type of game and target players.
Are you going for a hard game? An easy game?
Will random battles be accessible, but boss battles will be ruthless?
Are items easy to get? A necessity?
Do players need to grind to play the game?
When it comes to challenge there's no guideline since it really depends on the player...

I like having different types of enemies in each area, a big threat enemies that requires some strategy to beat, some cannon fodder enemies (easy to kill non-threatening), some middle tier enemies (not weak but not too strong).

The intend was definitely to make it hard, and around the mid-point, it picks up in difficulty (should have been earlier). Items are necessary as the player is dungeon-crawling. Grinding is pretty much nil, as the random battles are intended to level players up quickly for each area in preparation for the boss. I like the idea of mixing the enemies (as in my next paragraph), but the cannon fodder enemies seem to be a big problem for me early on. I think my mistake was like LockeZ said: I started out too easy in general.


ReiReisender
Mixing easy and hard encounters is actually pretty good idea. If I think about Phantasy Star II for example, they were some enemies that were significantly harder than others, either because they dealt pretty deadly damage or because they hardly took any damage from normal attacks. When I ran into those I was always "oh shi--- better use my best skills on those". That gave it a nice change from always just using normal attack and conserving MP for healing.

I like the idea of mixing easy and hard. Maybe some troops where there's an easy enemy or two surrounded by a mid-boss. Would make for some interesting encounters.


Crystalgate
Anyway, if you are wondering how hard you should make the game, first consider how the player can combat the higher difficulty. In an action game, if a difficulty makes enemies deal twice the damage they normally do, this means you have to play better so you get hit only half as often or less. However, is this even possible in your RPG?

Figure out what the player can do to reduce or prevent incoming damage. Now, the more preventable an attack is, the more you can increase its power without making the game unreasonable. Unpreventable attacks reduced to whatever the player can reduce it to are mandatory damage.

That's a good thing to consider. The idea was that the players would mix-and-match weapons with various skills to give themselves an advantage. One weapon would be noticeable for reducing enemy attack for a couple turns, while another skill would make the enemy more vulnerable to specific magic damage, allowing another character to follow up on it. Things like that, and more.


Let's say your game is considered to easy. Both troops are equally hard since the player doesn't bother avoiding the preventable damage, there's no point to it. So, you raise stats of all enemies to make them harder. This is all good for the first troop since the player can avoid that extra damage it deals. However, the second troop is now unreasonable hard. Worst case scenario, you can make a game where either the player has no reason to bother using tactics or the game is too hard even if the player do use good tactics.

I agree with you: I don't think difficulty is simply raising the stats, but rather it's related to the skill of the player in utilizing the tools available. I'm working on a follow up to the game with a whole new system, and I think I figured out a good way to make it far more difficult through each enemy's diverse set of skills.
I will take a bit of a side-step to the whole discussion and mention one important thing about challenge: If it is really challenging and difficult, and the player is likely to fail, make the iterations exceptionally short as well. A lot of what Dark Souls and other games do right is that there is no long drawn out sequence or cinematics you have to watch back through to get back into the action. You die, you restart. FFXIII I think did this really well as well, since you can just restart any fight you lose from the start.

Of course, that goes for really any game, there is no excuse to force players to sit through stuff they've already seen because they died. Let them retry without even going to game over!
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
Man, that's the exact opposite of how Dark Souls works. You die, you have to run through the dungeon to get back to where you were. You die twice in a row, you lose your experience progress towards the next level. It doesn't have any cut scenes, but it definitely has a very long sequence you have to go through every time. (And the loading screens in Dark Souls 3 take longer than most games' cut scenes, but that's a technical problem, not a design problem.)