LETTING PLAYERS CATCH UP AFTER CHANGING BUILDS

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
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
Here's a game design topic I've been struggling with. To what degree is it good to let players change their characters' builds?

The most troublesome situations to many people are the methods of customizing your character that are extremely difficult to change or undo later. For example, in my game UOSSMUD, and in many other games out there such as Dark Souls or Dragon Age, every time you get a level up you get a choice of where to put your new stat points. Because each level is more expensive than the last, this means that if you put ten levels' worth of points into strength, and then you change plans and start putting points into agility instead because you want to make a thief instead of a warrior, then no matter how high level you get, you'll always know that your next level up would only take half as long if you hadn't wasted those ten levels on strength early on. This makes it very hard to catch up if you change stat builds.

In contrast, other methods of customization might be set up in such a way that it's very easy to catch up. In my game, and in many other games like basically any JRPG, if you switch classes or characters, you'll gain EXP or AP very fast. This is because each class or specialization or character has its own levels, which start over from 1 when you change. So when you go from being a level 20 monk to a level 1 knight, the first level of knight only costs 200 AP, even though getting level 21 in monk would cost 30000 AP. A similar thing happens if you switch from using level 30 Tifa to level 15 Barret. However, after changing classes/characters, you're still capable of fighting strong enemies that give high amounts of EXP or AP. This makes it easy to catch up if you change classes or characters.

Then of course there are things you can just freely swap around at any time once you get them, like equipment in most RPGs, or skills in Diablo 3. The only long-term choice the player might have is what order in which to obtain the different options. Most older games have very little of this, while many modern games almost exclusively have this type of customization.

Obviously all of these can be done well or poorly; I guess the more interesting question is when and why it's best to each of them. My thoughts are that the kind that's hard to undo makes sure that the player's choices actually matter and that they feel like their characters or teams are a unique expression of their planning and play style, not just the same as every other player. It also creates replay value, because if they play the game again with a different build, they'll have very different options available. Meanwhile, the kind that's easy to undo makes sure that if players make bad decisions, or want to try something else, or need a different strategy to beat certain dungeons or bosses, they still have plenty of options and don't feel completely locked in. Having specializations that are each to change also lets the designer create builds that actually have different capabilities, instead of having to make sure every single class and specialization has a stun, an interrupt, a healing spell of similar power, a defensive buff on a 20 second cooldown, a fire-elemental attack, a lightning-elemental attack, and so forth, because certain bosses require those skills.
I've been playing Final Fantasy III lately, and Square did the Final Fantasy thing, where each job is locked into its own set of attributes (which all increase according to that job's schedule every time the player increases a level.) So, a character at level 20 would have a thief with 15 Agility points, and then the character changes jobs, to a Warrior, and the stats completely change, to those of a level 20 Warrior.

Final Fantasy III also has the individual levels of expertise for each Job. So, you can have a character at level 20, and then, you switch jobs to a White Mage, who you've never used before--the job level is at level 1. You still retain a White Mage's level 20 CHARACTER attributes... so the player isn't totally stuck with crummy magic ability. Raising the job level then helps that character become even more effective.

An interesting thing about this system, is that Job level is not commuted by experience points like character level. It's done in job points, which are accrued by just taking action in battle. The job points do NOT increase in cost as the player gets better and better at the job (at least, not very much). 5-10 actions in battle will allow the character to gain 1 job level. This makes it much easier to become better at any given job at any time.

Off of the topic of Final Fantasy III, Another thing I thought of, was to give players the ability to change attributes once the player had increased the level of a class to a certain point. For example, a Level 10 thief, on changing classes, would be able to redistribute 10 points of Agility to any other stats.
Cap_H
DIGITAL IDENTITY CRISIS
6625
I'm kind of against changing builds/classes. There can be branching paths to make your thief usable as a tank or healer or there can be new characters added with new sets of skills.
Usually, an ability to change builds makes characters more generic. And I'm against that. Also, game needs to be balanced more vaguely, counting that you can enter any battle without certain skills.
My way would be probably branching paths. It's really strange to have a thief and suddenly make him/her in a mage. With branching paths (as seen in several multiplayer games) you can have a generic low level classes. These may avoid having any specialization at all and you can start profiling characters on your preferences. This way, when it comes to actual classes, you'll end up with a party, you may like, which may be totally unbalanced. So, you need to add more playable characters, who will join you later, just to make sure, that your party can overcome everything.
Another thing is introducing of new and secret classes. My opinion is, that they should be concrete characters rather than a set of skills and stats, which can be adjusted to anyone in your current party. Or changing it should be more story related than just a decision.
The thing you can notice is that there always is a price for changing classes. And it makes sense. You're breaking the continuity. You need to make sacrifices to get better and I don't agree with games, which give you this advantage for free.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
My favourite style is having classes be a supplement to the character. Say all stats level up when the character does and you also get some points to spend on whatever you like. Slippery McFingers the thief could increase his STR to max but he's the only character who can ever get the Steal skill. Some generic skills can be learned by anyone but there are always those character-specific ones like Blitz and Esper. However, players still have the freedom to give him huge STR and it's something they would likely try on Newgame+. This gives the dev the control they need and the player has the freedom they want.

I worked on one once that used this type of system but it had an SP reset item. This extremely rare item (that you got one of for free in the tutorial) let you rebuild your character just in case you decided Sticky McFingers should have some magic resistance since AGI doesn't effect magic.

I guess I'm more pro character than pro job. And in such a system there really isn't a need to "catch up". Because, well, catching up is unnecessary suckage.
Concerning balance, I find that games tend to be either character centered or monster centered. That is, if your characters are relatively static creations (such as in FF4), then the monsters are much more dynamic and varied. Basically, monsters represent new puzzles to master given the same player resources, forcing players to become very familiar with their characters. Its easier to balance extremely difficult monster-centric games as well, since you know at any given point in time the player does have the resources to win, however narrowly.

Character-centered games, on the other hand, tend to have monsters that more or less just scale and get stronger, and its the responsibility of the player to continually build up their character to be capable of handling this scaling. This gets around the problem of a player suddenly facing an impossible scenario. If builds are "locked," then you're basically forced into an easier game to avoid giving your player an impossible to beat opponent. However, if builds are free to be changed, difficulty can again be ramped up.

Generally, I think a lot of games tend to blend the two. For example, in Diablo 3, equipment is extremely important and flexible, but also somewhat permanent. If you face a boss you're unprepared for, you're in a lot of trouble. On the plus side, you know you'll have the proper skills for the fight, even if you struggle on the stats side. That allows Diablo 3 to have at least some level of variation in the monster hoards without having to worry too much about making an impossible scenario for their players.

For my own part, I hate being locked out of an optimal build. Given that most people will only play an RPG Maker game once (if even that), there's very little reason to ever lock anyone out of an optimal build. Therefore, I think there always needs to be some option to make a switch. If we return to Diablo 3, switching your equipment over a long period of time is possible and no more difficult than continuing upon your old build path, even if it can take a long time for a complete switch. This is an excellent dynamic, I think, that really blends flexibility and permanence.
In my opinion all games should just allow you to respec freely without any penalty.

Players should never be punished for choosing a bad build. There is NO reason to do it, no reason to force them to having to catch up, no reason to take away their gold, forcing them to grind again, no reason to make them feel they were dumb and wasted precious stat/skill points.

This is really something only game developers could think but players never enjoy.

Benefits of free respec:
- Players will not quit because of bad build
- Players won't feel bad due to having to restart the game from scratch
- Players will experiment around with different builds and consequently are much more likely they find a build they actually enjoy playing
- Players don't feel forced to use a guide for a build, which increases immersion as you don't have to alt-tab out of the game and read guides on every level up
- Not using a guide also causes the variety of different builds to be much higher, which is particularly nice when there's online functionality

Ever since I started to use cheat engine / save editors / mods to allow me to respec in games, I enjoy games a ton more. All the genres I hated like WRPGs suddenly became awesome. But it really would be nice if devs simply integrated it into their games, so it's more comfortable to use (also, immersion!).
author=RyaReisender
- Players don't feel forced to use a guide for a build, which increases immersion as you don't have to alt-tab out of the game and read guides on every level up

It's funny you mention immersion here, since I feel that respeccing causes a huge loss of immersion. ("Thieves are useless here, so I'll make him a mage for this dungeon.")

And while I approve of removing things that are needlessly frustrating, doing so could lessen the sense of accomplishment and some players may quit out of boredom.

I mostly agree with the rest of your points, which is way I prefer games with limited respecs.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
The best kind of class changing system, in my opinion, is one where classes and respecting your character never feels like losing progress. Rather, you're just taking your character in a different direction than before. I think being able to change from a pure master warrior to a pure master mage at the drop of a hat is a prime example of losing lots of progress and actually harms immersion more than helps it. Yet being forced to grind to get a character up to speed after changing classes is just as extreme, since it break the flow of the game too much.

If you have the option to reclass characters like early Final Fantasy titles, then the best system I can think of right now is how Final Fantasy V did it. Whatever abilities you learn with that class stays with the character, NOT the class. When you switch classes, you can still set and use those learned abilities (including passive skills) regardless of your new class.

Say you wanted to create a Paladin Cecil character from FFIV. You would train this character as a White Mage until they learned to use tier 2 healing spells, then reclass to a warrior or equivalent to gain the stats and equip options the warrior enjoys and set your White Mage skill tree as an extra battle command. Depending on how much grinding you do, you could do the same thing with a bunch of different classes and have more options to customize your character to fit different situations you see on your adventure.
author=Kalin
author=RyaReisender
- Players don't feel forced to use a guide for a build, which increases immersion as you don't have to alt-tab out of the game and read guides on every level up
It's funny you mention immersion here, since I feel that respeccing causes a huge loss of immersion. ("Thieves are useless here, so I'll make him a mage for this dungeon.")

But in this case the immersion loss is the player's fault and not forced by bad game systems.

Also if the player doesn't enjoy playing thief in the dungeon because he's useless, then you shouldn't stop him from switching to mage, imo.
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
Everything the player does is the game's fault. You built a game that encouraged that behavior.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
author=RyaReisender
But in this case the immersion loss is the player's fault and not forced by bad game systems.

Also if the player doesn't enjoy playing thief in the dungeon because he's useless, then you shouldn't stop him from switching to mage, imo.

No, the player in me would rather keep immersed and tough through the dungeon where my thief gets less use because, if the dungeon design is good, some other class like maybe a warrior is shining there. There may only be one door for my thief to lockpick this time but when we get to the slums dungeon with dodgy enemies, it'll be my thief's turn to shine whereas my warrior will be struggling. If you can instantly respec then all the fun and dynamics of the dungeon die out quick.

Trine 2 (maybe also 3. Never played it) was a good example of a game where free unlimited anytime respec killed the fun of the game. You could literally just respect on the fly to pass whatever challenge you faced. There was absolutely 0 challenge ever. This was brutal because the first game had some really nice class-specific challenges.

I don't believe free respecs for all is the answer. Good dungeon and class design is the answer. If you literally can't progress in a game because of the way you built your party then either the game was designed poorly or you as a player made some very obviously bad decisions. And I've seen people do this.

I don't think being a player gives the player an instant whitecard for any action they take. In a good game, players still need to play smart. Saying "this character is a warrior, but I'm going to pay all my points into his INT" may be a cool and perfectly valid way to make a redmage-type guy but players who do that also need to accept their sacrifice- that he'll be swinging for less with physical attacks.
author=LockeZ
Everything the player does is the game's fault. You built a game that encouraged that behavior.

While that maybe true, being able to optionally play the game the way you enjoy is always better than being forced to play the game in a way you don't.

@Dragnfly
I pretty much disagree with everything you said, but that's mainly because you enjoy exactly those things that I hate in games. I can't take any enjoyment from being limited, I think Trine 2 was no fun because it was way too hard (also I don't think it depended on builds that much?), and I certainly don't think that in a good game, the players still need to play smart (I want to play games to relax and not to use my head).

It's true that a well-designed game can reduce the problems, but it is not even only about balance, it's also about how you enjoy a game. In many WRPGs different classes play quite differently and it's impossible to predict what you enjoy the most without trying it. You also don't know which classes join as party members or are accessible early on. And not everybody wants to start the same game 5+ times just to figure out how to play it so you enjoy it.

Then... it's best just not to give the player an option in the first place.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
Yeah, we're absolute opposites then. I'm no god of gamer skill or anything but Trine 2 was so easy I almost quit. It was literally only the visuals and my love of the first one that kept me going at one point. I also play games to relax, but I relax by using my brain and my hands, be it for playing or for any creative task, and I relax by using my brain for what I want, instead of at work where I'm using it for what I need to to get paid.

I can't really think of a game I've ever played that had some sort of class system but didn't have what you'd consider a difficult part at some point. Do you have any examples?
I'm of the opinion that games (of any kind, video games, sports, etc) without any rules or restrictions aren't very fun, and dumb players should be penalized by making dumb ass choices.

I'm all for an accommodating way to buffer frustration and make difficulty curves smooth, but I don't enjoy a game that never punishes me or forces or even encourages me to do better.
How can someone consider Trine 2 as easy? Every second screen I was stuck for over an hour before I managed to figure out how to continue. Sometimes I even watched a video of the solution and still couldn't pull it off. X_X I ragequit it eventually. I would have liked it if it wasn't so difficult, because I really liked the concept itself.

I can't really think of a game I've ever played that had some sort of class system but didn't have what you'd consider a difficult part at some point. Do you have any examples?

There aren't many that are not super hard and punish you for taking a wrong build and THAT is the problem.

Yes, most of those games have a difficulty setting and you can just put it on easy or trivial and finish it even without caring about your build, but I find that much less enjoyable than playing with an optimal build on a harder difficulty.

So yeah, all those games on trivial/very easy/easy don't have difficult parts. FFX-2 is also easy and has a class system, but it's nothing I'm thinking of.

Games where I used cheats to be able to respec and got more enjoyment from them that way:
- Might&Magic series
- Baldur's Gate / Icewind Dale / Pillars of Eternity
- Lords of Xulima
- Avernum series (this one has an integrated character editor, so it's a good example on how to do it right) and the other spiderweb games
- Divinity series
- Blackguards series (encrypted save files and even using cheat engine isn't easy, they really hate the player)
- Drakensang series
- Banner Saga series
- Legend of Grimrock series (has integrated debug mode)
- Shadowrun series (also integrated debug mode)
- The Witcher series (had to do some more changes to it, unlimited weight capacity, enough skill points to get all skills)

Probably more but don't remember them at the moment.
author=Feldschlacht IV
I'm of the opinion that games (of any kind, video games, sports, etc) without any rules or restrictions aren't very fun, and dumb players should be penalized by making dumb ass choices.

I'm all for an accommodating way to buffer frustration and make difficulty curves smooth, but I don't enjoy a game that never punishes me or forces or even encourages me to do better.
There are different ways of punishment. Dying in a battle because you made a wrong choice and having to retry it is perfectly fine. Being weaker than you should be EVERY battle for the rest of the game because you didn't study guides on how to build your character before playing = bad.

A challenge is only good if the player can solve it perfectly only by ingame information and effort.

I want a challenge too, but I want the challenges to be short-term and not something like putting your stats right or else having to restart or having a bad time for the rest of the game.

A game without any challenge makes me quit of boredom. I game that frustrates me with annoying long-term challenges like "bad build" or "only being able to save every 2 hours" or "you can't beat the dungeon because you ran out of healing items and there's no instant return to town spell" makes me ragequit.

Both is bad, though the former is something that you forget pretty fast whereas the latter becomes a candidate for most hated game ever.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
author=RyaReisender
How can someone consider Trine 2 as easy? Every second screen I was stuck for over an hour before I managed to figure out how to continue. Sometimes I even watched a video of the solution and still couldn't pull it off. X_X I ragequit it eventually. I would have liked it if it wasn't so difficult, because I really liked the concept itself.


Pretty sure you're trolling now. *ignores
No that was my experience with it. But we really don't need to discuss that further. You are obviously a genius that is able to play through all games he/she plays.
author=RyaReisender
No that was my experience with it. But we really don't need to discuss that further. You are obviously a genius that is able to play through all games he/she plays.


I don't know man; I remember you saying that you couldn't finish Breath of Fire III because you couldn't afford healing items, I recently replayed through BOF III and I actually did the math; it's almost mathematically impossible after a certain point, in most reasonable instances, to not be able to afford Healing Herbs with battles won.
BoF III also has the problem that is has long-term challenges. I already said in the other thread that I don't remember it properly anymore, probably I didn't want to buy any healing items because I needed the money to buy new equips.

Counter-example: SaGaFrontier. My favorite game. Short term challenges only. Many people consider it unfairly hard. I finished it 20 times (except Riki's scenario, Ring Lord ruins it - that's again a long-term challenge because it requires building up the right skills).

SaGaFrontier 2 on the other hand was waaay too hard, though I think I just did something wrong (when I watch videos the characters have 2 times the HP than mine and deal like 10 times the damage! even though I actually grinded for hours until all my weapons except the best ones had broken). Again a long-term challenge, especially due to weapon breaking (but even some of the short-term challenges are ridiculously hard, like the last SRPG battle which even if you did the perfect movement you only had a 30% chance to win due to randomness).

I finished all Star Ocean games and Valkyrie Profile and found all fairly easy.
FFVI was easy. FFVII was easy except the final dungeon. Eternal Sonata was fairly easy. Lots of games I loved and finished.

Shadow of the Colossus and Trine 2 on the other hand were frustratingly hard at some points.


But anyway, the point was that it doesn't really depend on the difficulty itself but more on if it's a long-term or a short-term challenge.

Long-term challenges are frustrating and consequently restatting needs to be possible.
Pages: first 12 next last