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)
[UNITY] DIE BASED RPG COMBAT
Posts
Toaster_Team
966
Toaster_Team
View playlists
CloseHere’s an explanation of what I have in mind for battle.
1. Each character can move a certain amount of squares every turn. This action is granted for free every turn.
2. Each character has a combat value, represented by a skull. The higher the better.
3. The combat value is translated as dice rolled. A combat of 3 means rolling three dice and a number of 2, 2 dice etc…
I'd like to animate the die actually rolling but it'll fiendishly difficult in 2D as opposed to use 3d. So I'm pushing it that back until I have a better idea of how to do it.
4. There’s no order per se as far as close combat is concerned. It’s not like D&D when you attack, then your enemy attacks. Explained further in 5.
5. When a close combat attack is initiated, characters involved roll their combat in dice.
Ex.: Rogue rolls 2 dice against a goblin which rolls 1.
The rogue rolls 3 and 5 while goblin rolls 3.
6. The highest score is selected. The highest score wins.
Ex.: Rogue gets a score of 5 while goblin gets a score of 3.
7. Then determine the difference between the 5 and the 3. This would be done automatically through coding.
Ex.: In this case, it’s 2.
8. The difference is then influenced by the damage of the weapon used. Weaker weapons have a smaller damage factor while more powerful ones have a higher damage number.
Ex: The weapon factor for a sword is 1. This is the standard for most common weapons.
The weapon factor for the dagger is 0.5. This is the standard for smaller, weaker weapons.
Let’s say the rogue is using a sword and the goblin a dagger.
The Rogue would get a damage output of 2 (2x1) while the goblin would get a damage output of 1 (2x0.5).
9. The next step is adding in armor. One way to do this could be to have armor reduce the amount of damage taken by a certain amount. While this is the most practical way of using armor, I also feel like I could be more original here. For one thing, I’d like armor to degrade as it’s being hit, offering less and less protection with wear and tear.
10. Whatever damage output remains is reduced from the health pool of the character. For example, a goblin with 3 health would be down to 1 health after being injured.
One thing I need to keep in mind is that risk of one-hit kill, especially when it comes to player characters. If a player character rolls a 1 and the enemy rolls a 6, he could potentially take a 5 health points loss. My current player characters have a low health count at the moment, so I need to adjust this accordingly.
11. Morale: this is a concept I want to put in to mitigate RGN. The player has a pool of morale points which are refreshed each turn. He can use MP (morale points) to influence the result of a roll. For example, he can spend one MP to increase a die roll of one point, turning a 4 into 5. I find this will allow players some control on the outcome of roll die.
Morale in of itself could also be influenced by the results of battle. Again, I’m on the fence about this. A losing party would be in ever bigger trouble if the RNG isn’t going their way. On the other hand, an already winning party would be in an even better position because there would be even more Morale points available.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So here it is. What do you guys think? I need to be 100% sure about this before we go into coding to avoid any backtracking which is a big no-no.
1. Each character can move a certain amount of squares every turn. This action is granted for free every turn.
2. Each character has a combat value, represented by a skull. The higher the better.
3. The combat value is translated as dice rolled. A combat of 3 means rolling three dice and a number of 2, 2 dice etc…
I'd like to animate the die actually rolling but it'll fiendishly difficult in 2D as opposed to use 3d. So I'm pushing it that back until I have a better idea of how to do it.
4. There’s no order per se as far as close combat is concerned. It’s not like D&D when you attack, then your enemy attacks. Explained further in 5.
5. When a close combat attack is initiated, characters involved roll their combat in dice.
Ex.: Rogue rolls 2 dice against a goblin which rolls 1.
The rogue rolls 3 and 5 while goblin rolls 3.
6. The highest score is selected. The highest score wins.
Ex.: Rogue gets a score of 5 while goblin gets a score of 3.
7. Then determine the difference between the 5 and the 3. This would be done automatically through coding.
Ex.: In this case, it’s 2.
8. The difference is then influenced by the damage of the weapon used. Weaker weapons have a smaller damage factor while more powerful ones have a higher damage number.
Ex: The weapon factor for a sword is 1. This is the standard for most common weapons.
The weapon factor for the dagger is 0.5. This is the standard for smaller, weaker weapons.
Let’s say the rogue is using a sword and the goblin a dagger.
The Rogue would get a damage output of 2 (2x1) while the goblin would get a damage output of 1 (2x0.5).
9. The next step is adding in armor. One way to do this could be to have armor reduce the amount of damage taken by a certain amount. While this is the most practical way of using armor, I also feel like I could be more original here. For one thing, I’d like armor to degrade as it’s being hit, offering less and less protection with wear and tear.
10. Whatever damage output remains is reduced from the health pool of the character. For example, a goblin with 3 health would be down to 1 health after being injured.
One thing I need to keep in mind is that risk of one-hit kill, especially when it comes to player characters. If a player character rolls a 1 and the enemy rolls a 6, he could potentially take a 5 health points loss. My current player characters have a low health count at the moment, so I need to adjust this accordingly.
11. Morale: this is a concept I want to put in to mitigate RGN. The player has a pool of morale points which are refreshed each turn. He can use MP (morale points) to influence the result of a roll. For example, he can spend one MP to increase a die roll of one point, turning a 4 into 5. I find this will allow players some control on the outcome of roll die.
Morale in of itself could also be influenced by the results of battle. Again, I’m on the fence about this. A losing party would be in ever bigger trouble if the RNG isn’t going their way. On the other hand, an already winning party would be in an even better position because there would be even more Morale points available.
_________________________________________________________________________________
So here it is. What do you guys think? I need to be 100% sure about this before we go into coding to avoid any backtracking which is a big no-no.
EDPVincent
12
From what you've said, your combat system is basically rolling a die and praying to the RNG God that you'll win. If you want that, you don't even need to bother making a combat system. And if you expect to not redo any code, specially of a combat system, you're in for a world of hurt.
Ramshackin
1462
There's some confusing concepts for me as a player.
Why do characters bother rolling multiple dice if only one of the rolls matter? What's the point of rolling higher or lower than your opponent when, ultimately, you share the same base damage? It seems like the only number that matters in combat is the weapon factor, so why even roll the dice?
Regarding balance, 1-6 is a huge variance. Some board games with dice based combat opt for special, more balanced dice. For example, 2 sides are blank, 2 sides have a single damage mark, 2 sides have a double damage mark.
Why do characters bother rolling multiple dice if only one of the rolls matter? What's the point of rolling higher or lower than your opponent when, ultimately, you share the same base damage? It seems like the only number that matters in combat is the weapon factor, so why even roll the dice?
Regarding balance, 1-6 is a huge variance. Some board games with dice based combat opt for special, more balanced dice. For example, 2 sides are blank, 2 sides have a single damage mark, 2 sides have a double damage mark.
Toaster_Team
966
@Ramshackin:
Hello!
Regarding your question:
So basically, if you roll multiple die, you select the highest score from all of them and discard the others. So if you roll 5 die and get: 2,2,5,3,1; you'd pick 5. This means that you have a higher chance to get a higher score.
From a gameplay perspective, this means that a less skilled fighter can win a round in battle against are skilled opponent although it won't very often.
Regarding your second question:
Well, it's two-fold.
1. The higher the roll difference, the higher the potential damage.
Ex: Rogue rolls a 6 and goblin rolls 1. Rogue succeeds at +5 (6-1). I'll finish answering this in 2.
2. You don't share the same base damage. It depends on your weapon. Everyone is limited to a certain range of weapons:
So you success range is +5, you'd have different damage potential depending on the weapon: 0,5; 1; 1.5; 2, etc... I don't aim to go higher than 2 for balancing purposes but you get the gist of it.
No, no. I mean, the weapon factor only comes into play when you manage to score a hit when comparing rolls.
I like the idea of custom die and I did consider it. The issue I find with that is ultimately the lack of variance you mentioned. It'd be fine if it were only for combat. But I need also need die for: casting spells, skill checks, random game checks and so on. I therefore find the lack of 6 different possibilities rather limiting to the point where it becomes a hindrance when designing systems.
Anyways, thanks for commenting the mechanics. I'd be interested in what you have in mind for the custom die and how you would handle it. I'm not closed to the idea, I just need to be careful about it. I don't want the die to end up being problematic as opposed to be a facilitator.
That's why I need to plan ahead in great detail so we don't end up taking back steps when it comes to coding.
Hello!
Regarding your question:
Why do characters bother rolling multiple dice if only one of the rolls matter?
5. When a close combat attack is initiated, characters involved roll their combat in dice.
Ex.: Rogue rolls 2 dice against a goblin which rolls 1.
The rogue rolls 3 and 5 while goblin rolls 3.
6. The highest score is selected. The highest score wins.
Ex.: Rogue gets a score of 5 while goblin gets a score of 3.
So basically, if you roll multiple die, you select the highest score from all of them and discard the others. So if you roll 5 die and get: 2,2,5,3,1; you'd pick 5. This means that you have a higher chance to get a higher score.
From a gameplay perspective, this means that a less skilled fighter can win a round in battle against are skilled opponent although it won't very often.
Regarding your second question:
What's the point of rolling higher or lower than your opponent when, ultimately, you share the same base damage?
Well, it's two-fold.
1. The higher the roll difference, the higher the potential damage.
Ex: Rogue rolls a 6 and goblin rolls 1. Rogue succeeds at +5 (6-1). I'll finish answering this in 2.
2. You don't share the same base damage. It depends on your weapon. Everyone is limited to a certain range of weapons:
Ex: The weapon factor for a sword is 1. This is the standard for most common weapons.
The weapon factor for the dagger is 0.5. This is the standard for smaller, weaker weapons.
So you success range is +5, you'd have different damage potential depending on the weapon: 0,5; 1; 1.5; 2, etc... I don't aim to go higher than 2 for balancing purposes but you get the gist of it.
It seems like the only number that matters in combat is the weapon factor, so why even roll the dice?
No, no. I mean, the weapon factor only comes into play when you manage to score a hit when comparing rolls.
Regarding balance, 1-6 is a huge variance. Some board games with dice based combat opt for special, more balanced dice. For example, 2 sides are blank, 2 sides have a single damage mark, 2 sides have a double damage mark.
I like the idea of custom die and I did consider it. The issue I find with that is ultimately the lack of variance you mentioned. It'd be fine if it were only for combat. But I need also need die for: casting spells, skill checks, random game checks and so on. I therefore find the lack of 6 different possibilities rather limiting to the point where it becomes a hindrance when designing systems.
Anyways, thanks for commenting the mechanics. I'd be interested in what you have in mind for the custom die and how you would handle it. I'm not closed to the idea, I just need to be careful about it. I don't want the die to end up being problematic as opposed to be a facilitator.
That's why I need to plan ahead in great detail so we don't end up taking back steps when it comes to coding.
Shinan
4314
You could take a look at the Games Workshop Lord of the Rings miniatures game. I can't exactly remember how it worked but I seem to recall it was a contest between die rolls. Where more powerful characters would get extra dice. Characters also had a combat skill where in the case of a tie the character with the higher combat skill would win the contest. I can't remember how the damage was dealt though. There was all kinds of extra stuff involved (including a limited point pool you could use up to increase you die roll).
Toaster_Team
966
From what I understand about what you've written, it's essentially very similar to what I have described here.
Well, I think it'll work out then.
_________________________________________________________________________________
There's still armor to factor in. I'd like to include armor in a way which is interesting. I think armor in Dungeons and Dragons is pretty boring.
I'd say that's about the last thing I need to figure out combatwise.
Do you guys have any suggestions? My objective in this thread is to read game design ideas based on my original premise. Go wild. I'm sure you guys have played tabletop rpgs right? Anything you liked that stood out?
Well, I think it'll work out then.
_________________________________________________________________________________
There's still armor to factor in. I'd like to include armor in a way which is interesting. I think armor in Dungeons and Dragons is pretty boring.
I'd say that's about the last thing I need to figure out combatwise.
Do you guys have any suggestions? My objective in this thread is to read game design ideas based on my original premise. Go wild. I'm sure you guys have played tabletop rpgs right? Anything you liked that stood out?
For pure D6, I'd say check out West End Games Star Wars tabletop if you haven't already and similar to Shinan's suggestion, Warhammer Fantasy or 40k. Though I feel you might know them already since I recall you saying that was the style you were going for.
Honestly, since you aren't physically rolling and I'm sure your systems does the math for you, I don't see a huge problem with your system. (though it doesn't hurt to hear more feedback and suggestions)
Honestly, since you aren't physically rolling and I'm sure your systems does the math for you, I don't see a huge problem with your system. (though it doesn't hurt to hear more feedback and suggestions)
Ramshackin
1462
author=Toaster_Team
No, no. I mean, the weapon factor only comes into play when you manage to score a hit when comparing rolls.
So when the rouge and goblin engage in combat, only one of them does damage? I was thrown off by this line:
author=Toaster_Team
The Rogue would get a damage output of 2 (2x1) while the goblin would get a damage output of 1 (2x0.5).
It made it seem like they both do damage during an attack.
--
author=Toaster_Team
I like the idea of custom die and I did consider it. The issue I find with that is ultimately the lack of variance you mentioned. It'd be fine if it were only for combat. But I need also need die for: casting spells, skill checks, random game checks and so on. I therefore find the lack of 6 different possibilities rather limiting to the point where it becomes a hindrance when designing systems.
Skill checks work by adding all the "hit" marks. For example, a character with 3 intelligence would roll 3 dice on an intelligence check and add the marks to determine if they pass.
The advantage is giving the developer finer control over the probability and, ultimately, the game balance. You're also able to have "powerful" dice for special weapons or abilities. Say a standard die has 4 single marks, 1 double, and 1 blank. A power die has 3 single and 3 double marks. A sword lets you roll 3 normal dice, while a flaming dragon sword lets you roll 2 normal and 1 power die. Or a wizard's ability lets them swap a normal die for a power die on an intelligence check.
An alternative is a combat system similar to Eclipse, which uses standard dice. The 1-6 roll determines whether that die hits or misses, and the damage is based on the color of the die. Yellow dice do 1 damage, orange dice do 2, and red dice do 4. The amount and color of dice you roll is based on your weapon.
For example, the rouge's sword lets her roll 2 yellow dice, and the goblin has 3 defense. The rouge rolls a 6 and a 2 with her dice. The 2 misses, and the 6 hits, resulting in 1 damage.
The leads to tighter control over damage for the developer and more predictable combat for the player.
Toaster_Team
966
@Ramshakin:
Yes, unless they end up getting the same result, in which case they both take damage, sort of like in a real scuffle where you both manage to land a hit on each other.
My concern here is having a variety of die will make things too complicated. The reason why I aimed at a D6 was because it's fairly common. If I have to design more than 2 sets of die for various situations, I feel like that's too complicated.
Again, this would involve different sets of die. If I'm to design a special die, I'd like it to be able to cover all of the game's mechanics like a normal D6 would. If using special die involves multiple sets, I feel that's a shortcoming.
Thanks for the suggestions though!
So when the rouge and goblin engage in combat, only one of them does damage?
Yes, unless they end up getting the same result, in which case they both take damage, sort of like in a real scuffle where you both manage to land a hit on each other.
The advantage is giving the developer finer control over the probability and, ultimately, the game balance. You're also able to have "powerful" dice for special weapons or abilities. Say a standard die has 4 single marks, 1 double, and 1 blank. A power die has 3 single and 3 double marks. A sword lets you roll 3 normal dice, while a flaming dragon sword lets you roll 2 normal and 1 power die. Or a wizard's ability lets them swap a normal die for a power die on an intelligence check.
My concern here is having a variety of die will make things too complicated. The reason why I aimed at a D6 was because it's fairly common. If I have to design more than 2 sets of die for various situations, I feel like that's too complicated.
An alternative is a combat system similar to Eclipse, which uses standard dice. The 1-6 roll determines whether that die hits or misses, and the damage is based on the color of the die. Yellow dice do 1 damage, orange dice do 2, and red dice do 4. The amount and color of dice you roll is based on your weapon.
Again, this would involve different sets of die. If I'm to design a special die, I'd like it to be able to cover all of the game's mechanics like a normal D6 would. If using special die involves multiple sets, I feel that's a shortcoming.
Thanks for the suggestions though!
Ramshackin
1462
One more attempt at encouraging you to rethink the damage calculation, then I'll stop bothering, promise ;)
Your rules are totally simple to learn, but the probabilities they create are complex.
Here's the probability histogram for the difference of two dice:
http://www.math.ups.edu/~martinj/courses/fall2008/m160/TwoDiceDiffHists.pdf
Not exactly intuitive, but you can probably reason it out in your head. But here's a bunch of calculations determining the probability that the maximum of n dice rolls equal k:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/198409/probability-of-the-maximum-of-n-dice-rolls-being-equal-to-k
Not the easiest to understand. And that's not even what we're trying to do. We want the probability that the max of n dice rolls is greater than the max of m dice rolls, then get the probability histogram for the difference of those two to determine our most likely damage.
The end result is, as a player, I have no solid idea how much damage I'm going to do, or how likely it is I'll even land a hit. If it's a Mario Party style game where you're not really in control and the fun comes from sitting back and watching the madness happen, then that's totally fine. But if it's a tactical game where I'm meant to make calculated decisions, it's gonna be rough.
If I'm rolling 5 dice against the enemies 3, I'm more likely to hit, but is it a pretty certain hit, or a more close and risky attack? If I'm offered an upgrade to roll 2 more dice or have a +10% damage bonus, hard to make that decision because I don't know the value of rolling 2 more dice. How to calculate that?
Okay, let's jump back to the damage system in Eclipse and strip out the fancy colored dice. For each D6 that rolls higher than the enemy's armor stat, 1 damage. The enemy has 3 armor, so I got a 50% chance to hit with each die. I'm rolling 4 die, the enemy has 1 HP left - this is a pretty safe fight to engage in.
Your rules are totally simple to learn, but the probabilities they create are complex.
Here's the probability histogram for the difference of two dice:
http://www.math.ups.edu/~martinj/courses/fall2008/m160/TwoDiceDiffHists.pdf
Not exactly intuitive, but you can probably reason it out in your head. But here's a bunch of calculations determining the probability that the maximum of n dice rolls equal k:
https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/198409/probability-of-the-maximum-of-n-dice-rolls-being-equal-to-k
Not the easiest to understand. And that's not even what we're trying to do. We want the probability that the max of n dice rolls is greater than the max of m dice rolls, then get the probability histogram for the difference of those two to determine our most likely damage.
The end result is, as a player, I have no solid idea how much damage I'm going to do, or how likely it is I'll even land a hit. If it's a Mario Party style game where you're not really in control and the fun comes from sitting back and watching the madness happen, then that's totally fine. But if it's a tactical game where I'm meant to make calculated decisions, it's gonna be rough.
If I'm rolling 5 dice against the enemies 3, I'm more likely to hit, but is it a pretty certain hit, or a more close and risky attack? If I'm offered an upgrade to roll 2 more dice or have a +10% damage bonus, hard to make that decision because I don't know the value of rolling 2 more dice. How to calculate that?
Okay, let's jump back to the damage system in Eclipse and strip out the fancy colored dice. For each D6 that rolls higher than the enemy's armor stat, 1 damage. The enemy has 3 armor, so I got a 50% chance to hit with each die. I'm rolling 4 die, the enemy has 1 HP left - this is a pretty safe fight to engage in.
Toaster_Team
966
By all means challenge my ideas, that's the whole point of the thread.
I'd like to try to tweak my current system before getting rid of it.
So how about this:
The maximum difference between 1 and 6 is 5. That's the most difference you can have on a die. With my current system, there's too much of a "swing" with the weapon factor.
So here's what I'm thinking; both characters engaged in battle their respective amount of die keeping their own highest score and then compare.
Ex.: Rogue rolls 2 die and gets 3 and 5 while the goblin rolls 3. This means Rogue 5 vs goblin 3. Rogue hits the goblin with a margin of 2.
Then, the success margin determines the type of wound inflicted. As I said before the maximum is 5 so:
1-2: light wound
3-4: medium wound
5: critical wound
The type of wound actually inflicted is actually determined by the weapon factor.
Dagger: 1
Sword: 2
Two-handed sword: 3
Ex.:
Dagger:
Light Wound: 1
Medium Wound: 2
Critical Wound: 3
Sword:
Light Wound: 2
Medium Wound: 3
Critical Wound: 4
This would add a "step" in combat making it a bit more complex but with a much more manageable damage output so I think it's a fair trade-off. The step itself is easy to understand so it shouldn't confuse the player.
So in our example with the goblin and rogue from before, if she's equipped with a sword, she'd damage the goblin for 2 (light wound).
If they roll a tie, both take a light wound, both grazing each other. This would make sense since they almost both managed to win the round when comparing rolls.
As for armor, I don't want it to nullify damage. I think that's unrealistic how an armor would completely safeguard you. Or at least, if the armor does nullify some damage, it's minimal so I don't end up with walking tanks.
Perhaps armor could soak up damage and then gradually degrade as it takes more hits. Just brainstorming here, not certain.
Perhaps I could have two ratings for armor: protection and durability. Say a chain mail has a protection of 2 and a durability of 2. When dealing damage output, we compare the damage output to the armor.
The goblin wears a chain mail (2/2) and the rogue dealt it a blow of 2. If the blow is equal or under the protection of the armor, there is no damage but the durability goes down by 1. If the blow is higher than the protection, then the armor doesn't provide any protection?
That wouldn't make sense though. I don't like the idea of armor providing binary protection (something or nothing). Armor should always provide protection, just to a lesser degree to more powerful blows.
Any landed blow is influenced by the armor worn by the character, regardless of what the armor is. Lighter armor offer less protection but still provide some against any blow. I could just go for something really simple like two ratings;
protection reduces the damage and durability determines now many times the armor can provide protection.
Suppose a chain mail has a protection of 2 and a durability of 4. Rogue lands a hit on goblin with a damage output of 2. Chain mail reduces the 2 to 0 but durability goes down by 1, being now 3.
Again, this is problematic. It could mean the armor nullifying damage for too long in battle making things boring. Also, armor would only be useful at the beginning of the game or would require constant repair. I don't like that. It's unrealistic to think that armor would lose durability with every single strike. I mean, not in real life but in a game, some blows would dent the protection but not to the extent where durability would be compromised. The force of the blow should factor in.
So how about this instead: any damage equal or under the armor's protection rating is reduced by a certain amount without damaging the durability. Any damage higher than the protection still reduces damage but reduces durability.
For example: chain mail has a protection of 1 and a durability of 3. If the blow has a strength of 2, it surpasses the protection of the chain mail. The damage is reduced by 1 (protection of the chain mail) but the durability is reduced by 2, falling to 2. So the goblin takes 1 damage to its health and his armor durability goes down by 1.
If the blow had been of 1, then the chain mail would have nullified the damage and durability wouldn't have gone down.
I feel like that's a better compromise but could still lead to armor making battles too long as they would provide too much protection.
Thoughts?
I'd like to try to tweak my current system before getting rid of it.
So how about this:
The maximum difference between 1 and 6 is 5. That's the most difference you can have on a die. With my current system, there's too much of a "swing" with the weapon factor.
So here's what I'm thinking; both characters engaged in battle their respective amount of die keeping their own highest score and then compare.
Ex.: Rogue rolls 2 die and gets 3 and 5 while the goblin rolls 3. This means Rogue 5 vs goblin 3. Rogue hits the goblin with a margin of 2.
Then, the success margin determines the type of wound inflicted. As I said before the maximum is 5 so:
1-2: light wound
3-4: medium wound
5: critical wound
The type of wound actually inflicted is actually determined by the weapon factor.
Dagger: 1
Sword: 2
Two-handed sword: 3
Ex.:
Dagger:
Light Wound: 1
Medium Wound: 2
Critical Wound: 3
Sword:
Light Wound: 2
Medium Wound: 3
Critical Wound: 4
This would add a "step" in combat making it a bit more complex but with a much more manageable damage output so I think it's a fair trade-off. The step itself is easy to understand so it shouldn't confuse the player.
So in our example with the goblin and rogue from before, if she's equipped with a sword, she'd damage the goblin for 2 (light wound).
If they roll a tie, both take a light wound, both grazing each other. This would make sense since they almost both managed to win the round when comparing rolls.
As for armor, I don't want it to nullify damage. I think that's unrealistic how an armor would completely safeguard you. Or at least, if the armor does nullify some damage, it's minimal so I don't end up with walking tanks.
Perhaps armor could soak up damage and then gradually degrade as it takes more hits. Just brainstorming here, not certain.
Perhaps I could have two ratings for armor: protection and durability. Say a chain mail has a protection of 2 and a durability of 2. When dealing damage output, we compare the damage output to the armor.
The goblin wears a chain mail (2/2) and the rogue dealt it a blow of 2. If the blow is equal or under the protection of the armor, there is no damage but the durability goes down by 1. If the blow is higher than the protection, then the armor doesn't provide any protection?
That wouldn't make sense though. I don't like the idea of armor providing binary protection (something or nothing). Armor should always provide protection, just to a lesser degree to more powerful blows.
Any landed blow is influenced by the armor worn by the character, regardless of what the armor is. Lighter armor offer less protection but still provide some against any blow. I could just go for something really simple like two ratings;
protection reduces the damage and durability determines now many times the armor can provide protection.
Suppose a chain mail has a protection of 2 and a durability of 4. Rogue lands a hit on goblin with a damage output of 2. Chain mail reduces the 2 to 0 but durability goes down by 1, being now 3.
Again, this is problematic. It could mean the armor nullifying damage for too long in battle making things boring. Also, armor would only be useful at the beginning of the game or would require constant repair. I don't like that. It's unrealistic to think that armor would lose durability with every single strike. I mean, not in real life but in a game, some blows would dent the protection but not to the extent where durability would be compromised. The force of the blow should factor in.
So how about this instead: any damage equal or under the armor's protection rating is reduced by a certain amount without damaging the durability. Any damage higher than the protection still reduces damage but reduces durability.
For example: chain mail has a protection of 1 and a durability of 3. If the blow has a strength of 2, it surpasses the protection of the chain mail. The damage is reduced by 1 (protection of the chain mail) but the durability is reduced by 2, falling to 2. So the goblin takes 1 damage to its health and his armor durability goes down by 1.
If the blow had been of 1, then the chain mail would have nullified the damage and durability wouldn't have gone down.
I feel like that's a better compromise but could still lead to armor making battles too long as they would provide too much protection.
Thoughts?
hedge1
862
I prefer giving each weapon 5 damage levels, based upon a die roll. That allows for better long term scaling with better weapons while maintaining the purpose of the die roll. Additionally, I think the high variance of the die roll is critical for this game design, because if you're not incorporating the full 1-6 range, then why bother making the game around dice at all? Just use standard random numbers.
You should also consider how the number of dice being rolled scales, because at a certain point both sides should expect to roll 6 every time. So if it were me, I'd look at allowing multiple dice to play a roll in the damage calculations. Maybe half your dice (rounded down) are added together and compared against the same number of dice on the defensive side (if available). The current concept of using only the highest dice still applies.
If you do something like that, you could then make weapons add to the number of dice being rolled. So you may start with 1 die and your Wood Sword gives +1 dice, for two dice total. And when attacking, you roll both dice and take only the highest value, and then compare it against the highest die from the defender (regardless of how many dice the defender has).
This then gives purpose to armor, as armor could add additional dice for the defense, effectively reducing the amount of damage taken. If you make it so that armor always gives fewer dice, you can then create some sort of standard scaling into the system where the last die (or dice) from the attacker will effectively be up against nothing from the defense. Did that make sense?
The armor protection idea you outlined (the last idea) sounds pretty cool, though there is definitely the issue with scaling. That is, if protection is high enough you are invincible, and if it is low enough, your armor is destroyed immediately. If you go this route, maybe look at some sort of percentage reduction instead?
You should also consider how the number of dice being rolled scales, because at a certain point both sides should expect to roll 6 every time. So if it were me, I'd look at allowing multiple dice to play a roll in the damage calculations. Maybe half your dice (rounded down) are added together and compared against the same number of dice on the defensive side (if available). The current concept of using only the highest dice still applies.
If you do something like that, you could then make weapons add to the number of dice being rolled. So you may start with 1 die and your Wood Sword gives +1 dice, for two dice total. And when attacking, you roll both dice and take only the highest value, and then compare it against the highest die from the defender (regardless of how many dice the defender has).
This then gives purpose to armor, as armor could add additional dice for the defense, effectively reducing the amount of damage taken. If you make it so that armor always gives fewer dice, you can then create some sort of standard scaling into the system where the last die (or dice) from the attacker will effectively be up against nothing from the defense. Did that make sense?
The armor protection idea you outlined (the last idea) sounds pretty cool, though there is definitely the issue with scaling. That is, if protection is high enough you are invincible, and if it is low enough, your armor is destroyed immediately. If you go this route, maybe look at some sort of percentage reduction instead?
Toaster_Team
966
You should also consider how the number of dice being rolled scales, because at a certain point both sides should expect to roll 6 every time. So if it were me, I'd look at allowing multiple dice to play a roll in the damage calculations. Maybe half your dice (rounded down) are added together and compared against the same number of dice on the defensive side (if available). The current concept of using only the highest dice still applies.
Hmm... that's true, didn't think of that. I want the max die roll to remain fairly low however. I'm thinking 5 for the very max but even then that's pretty high/likely to get a 6. This undermines my system as a whole which sucks because I like the idea of various range of successes. I don't like the idea of 100% failure/100% success.
This being said, I could move on to the next denominator. For example:
A rolls 3 die while B rolls 4.
A rolls: 3,2,6.
B rolls: 6,1,1,5.
If we compare both: the 6 even out, then we move on to the next in line, the 5 for B and the 3 for A. So that could work is a fairly pragmatic workaround to the point you brought up.
Or I could have a 6 based tie, re-roll the 6 to see who has the highest roll, that's also a simple solution.
I prefer giving each weapon 5 damage levels, based upon a die roll. That allows for better long term scaling with better weapons while maintaining the purpose of the die roll. Additionally, I think the high variance of the die roll is critical for this game design, because if you're not incorporating the full 1-6 range, then why bother making the game around dice at all? Just use standard random numbers.
I'd like you to give an example because I'm not sure I understand.
The armor protection idea you outlined (the last idea) sounds pretty cool, though there is definitely the issue with scaling. That is, if protection is high enough you are invincible, and if it is low enough, your armor is destroyed immediately. If you go this route, maybe look at some sort of percentage reduction instead?
I want to stick to D6, no percentage. If the armor idea I have right now can't tailor to that, then I need to change it.
You brought up good problems, I'm glad you did. That way, I can change the rules accordingly. I have until next Wednesday to have a polished system.
hedge1
862
If you want to stick with a single die as damage, definitely go with the idea of using the next highest totals after ties, because that ups the advantage of having additional dice. Otherwise, the extra dice feel really worthless (imagine how you would feel if you roll 6, 6, 6, 6 and the other guy rolls 6, 2, 1, 1 and then wins the re-roll).
As for my confusing comment, when I wrote "5 damage levels" I just meant that right now you're proposing at most three damage levels for weapons (1-2, 3-4, 5) and I'm just saying you should have one level for each possibility (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That doesn't mean you can't have weapons which do the same damage for more than one level. It just means that you can have weapons that will do different damage for all levels. Restricting things to at most three tiers is just a method of reducing the randomness. And as I tried to hint at in my previous post, if you're making dice a big part of the game, embrace the randomness that comes with it. You will get unlucky. You will suddenly take a ton of damage, or have a bad fight. So embrace it. Just make sure that there are ways for the player to recover from a string of horrible luck (quick restarts, not a lot of lost progress, or just raw mitigation techniques like the MP stat you suggested).
As for armor, I don't think percentages would be a problem. All of the early Zelda games (including the original on the NES) use percentage-based armor.
That said, if you are willing to keep your stats very strictly controlled, you can do flat reductions effectively. It's just hard from my side to say much about that, then. As mentioned, doing flat reductions definitely run the risk of allowing the player to become invincible.
Some other random thoughts that may or may not be useful:
Perhaps with armor protection and durability, you could make it so that the amount of durability used is how much damage is prevented, not how much gets through. So if you had 2 protection and took 1 damage, you would lose 1 durability. If you took 5 damage, you'd lose only 2. That means the armor wears out even if it blocks all of the damage, but won't wear out any faster if you do take damage. So no invincibility, but there's still a (small) advantage in facing damage rolls which are smaller than your protection value.
Another thought is to treat the armor more like the character's HP pool. That is, you expect the armor to break, and the character, rather than constantly running to the inn, runs to the shop for repairs instead. One way this could manifest itself would be to use your system (only damage which exceeds protection reduces durability, and damage is always reduced by the amount of protection) and add in that damage which exceeds the protection value is reduced by 50% (so that having armor is always beneficial). Add in inventory/equipment space limitations, and you have yourself an alternative form of HP.
As for my confusing comment, when I wrote "5 damage levels" I just meant that right now you're proposing at most three damage levels for weapons (1-2, 3-4, 5) and I'm just saying you should have one level for each possibility (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That doesn't mean you can't have weapons which do the same damage for more than one level. It just means that you can have weapons that will do different damage for all levels. Restricting things to at most three tiers is just a method of reducing the randomness. And as I tried to hint at in my previous post, if you're making dice a big part of the game, embrace the randomness that comes with it. You will get unlucky. You will suddenly take a ton of damage, or have a bad fight. So embrace it. Just make sure that there are ways for the player to recover from a string of horrible luck (quick restarts, not a lot of lost progress, or just raw mitigation techniques like the MP stat you suggested).
As for armor, I don't think percentages would be a problem. All of the early Zelda games (including the original on the NES) use percentage-based armor.
That said, if you are willing to keep your stats very strictly controlled, you can do flat reductions effectively. It's just hard from my side to say much about that, then. As mentioned, doing flat reductions definitely run the risk of allowing the player to become invincible.
Some other random thoughts that may or may not be useful:
Perhaps with armor protection and durability, you could make it so that the amount of durability used is how much damage is prevented, not how much gets through. So if you had 2 protection and took 1 damage, you would lose 1 durability. If you took 5 damage, you'd lose only 2. That means the armor wears out even if it blocks all of the damage, but won't wear out any faster if you do take damage. So no invincibility, but there's still a (small) advantage in facing damage rolls which are smaller than your protection value.
Another thought is to treat the armor more like the character's HP pool. That is, you expect the armor to break, and the character, rather than constantly running to the inn, runs to the shop for repairs instead. One way this could manifest itself would be to use your system (only damage which exceeds protection reduces durability, and damage is always reduced by the amount of protection) and add in that damage which exceeds the protection value is reduced by 50% (so that having armor is always beneficial). Add in inventory/equipment space limitations, and you have yourself an alternative form of HP.
Toaster_Team
966
If you want to stick with a single die as damage, definitely go with the idea of using the next highest totals after ties, because that ups the advantage of having additional dice. Otherwise, the extra dice feel really worthless (imagine how you would feel if you roll 6, 6, 6, 6 and the other guy rolls 6, 2, 1, 1 and then wins the re-roll).
The problem with this is that it negates grazing. I wanted both characters to get damaged if they rolled a tie. I think I could use the next highest roll only if a 6 is rolled? I think that's likely solution.
As for my confusing comment, when I wrote "5 damage levels" I just meant that right now you're proposing at most three damage levels for weapons (1-2, 3-4, 5) and I'm just saying you should have one level for each possibility (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). That doesn't mean you can't have weapons which do the same damage for more than one level. It just means that you can have weapons that will do different damage for all levels. Restricting things to at most three tiers is just a method of reducing the randomness. And as I tried to hint at in my previous post, if you're making dice a big part of the game, embrace the randomness that comes with it. You will get unlucky. You will suddenly take a ton of damage, or have a bad fight. So embrace it. Just make sure that there are ways for the player to recover from a string of horrible luck (quick restarts, not a lot of lost progress, or just raw mitigation techniques like the MP stat you suggested).
Yes, it is to reduce the randomness. Hmm... I'm still on the fence about this. It'd require a lot more design time to tailor all damage levels than 3 to be honest. I know, that's not the best approach but I need to be very cautious of the scope. Keep things limited, don't go overboard. Most important lesson in indie game design for me: keep scope limited.
That said, if you are willing to keep your stats very strictly controlled, you can do flat reductions effectively. It's just hard from my side to say much about that, then. As mentioned, doing flat reductions definitely run the risk of allowing the player to become invincible.
So I need to find something else then.
Perhaps with armor protection and durability, you could make it so that the amount of durability used is how much damage is prevented, not how much gets through. So if you had 2 protection and took 1 damage, you would lose 1 durability. If you took 5 damage, you'd lose only 2. That means the armor wears out even if it blocks all of the damage, but won't wear out any faster if you do take damage. So no invincibility, but there's still a (small) advantage in facing damage rolls which are smaller than your protection value.
I like that idea as long as it doesn't mean that armor goes first and life after like Binding of Isaac, I don't want that. I don't want armor to act like a second skin. I want it to reduce damage, not nullify it (regarding your last paragraph).
hedge1
862
So I started to write a whole ton of stuff on this, but decided it was going to be better to just create a quick dummy project that demonstrates the combat and then you can mess around with it and see what you like. It's in Excel, so if you know how to use formulas it should be easy for you (don't forget to Unprotect the sheet if you want to edit it). Otherwise, you can at least see the difference between the two grazing mechanics, and the impact (or lack of impact) of having additional dice.
Die Based Combat Excel
As for the armor, in the example you quoted I intended the character to still take damage to HP anytime damage exceeded the armor's protection value. In the second example (not quoted), I intended armor to be more like extra health (like in Binding of Isaac).
Die Based Combat Excel
As for the armor, in the example you quoted I intended the character to still take damage to HP anytime damage exceeded the armor's protection value. In the second example (not quoted), I intended armor to be more like extra health (like in Binding of Isaac).
Toaster_Team
966
I checked the Excel sheet but I'll be honest and can't really come to any conclusion about it, especially about the grazing. What's your conclusion about it?
I've also got a new problem I have to find a solution about.
Basically, it's energy. Energy is my equivalent of action points. This means that every turn, you trade in energy for various actions be it using skills, casting spells and movement.
The thing is that I don't want all characters to behave the same regarding energy spending more particularly when it comes to movement.
I thought of having a single unit such as 1 tile = 1 energy to move around. But then I think some classes, like the Dwarf, shouldn't be able to move as nimbly as the rogue. His movement should be more limited.
One solution would be too give more energy to the Rogue and less to the dwarf. But that's not perfect. I want the rogue to move around more around the battlefield, I don't want it to necessarily be a lot more active than the dwarf when it comes to using skills.
I could have a situation where the characters use different energy amount to move one tile. This would make things too complicated I think.
Another solution could be to provide a new stat, movement, to each class. Each class is allowed a certain amount of "free" tiles before they need to spend energy. The rogue would have higher movement than the dwarf for example. I like this solution the best but it *would* involve adding one more stat which makes things more complicated. I want to reduce stats to the strict minimum, sticking to whatever is necessary.
Any other solutions?
I've also got a new problem I have to find a solution about.
Basically, it's energy. Energy is my equivalent of action points. This means that every turn, you trade in energy for various actions be it using skills, casting spells and movement.
The thing is that I don't want all characters to behave the same regarding energy spending more particularly when it comes to movement.
I thought of having a single unit such as 1 tile = 1 energy to move around. But then I think some classes, like the Dwarf, shouldn't be able to move as nimbly as the rogue. His movement should be more limited.
One solution would be too give more energy to the Rogue and less to the dwarf. But that's not perfect. I want the rogue to move around more around the battlefield, I don't want it to necessarily be a lot more active than the dwarf when it comes to using skills.
I could have a situation where the characters use different energy amount to move one tile. This would make things too complicated I think.
Another solution could be to provide a new stat, movement, to each class. Each class is allowed a certain amount of "free" tiles before they need to spend energy. The rogue would have higher movement than the dwarf for example. I like this solution the best but it *would* involve adding one more stat which makes things more complicated. I want to reduce stats to the strict minimum, sticking to whatever is necessary.
Any other solutions?
hedge1
862
So I had a lot of good conclusions from the spreadsheet, but just noticed I did it wrong. So I'll have to correct that and re-upload. If you're curious, what I learned from the spreadsheet was that there wasn't an advantage to additional combat dice. But that's because I wasn't ordering the results.
As for movement, one way or another you'll need to introduce a new variable. Either it will be that the dwarf has a penalty to movement (or takes more energy to move or whatever), or that characters have move counts. There really isn't another alternative.
If you want to keep things simple, I would go with making movement cost more for the dwarf. That way you could just list the movement cost in energy for the dwarf and it will feel like any other action (since, if I understand it correctly, all actions have movement costs). The downside to this method is that you'll need to use larger values so that you can have smaller gradients in movement (so not 1 vs 2 but more like 2 vs 3 or 4 vs 5).
As for movement, one way or another you'll need to introduce a new variable. Either it will be that the dwarf has a penalty to movement (or takes more energy to move or whatever), or that characters have move counts. There really isn't another alternative.
If you want to keep things simple, I would go with making movement cost more for the dwarf. That way you could just list the movement cost in energy for the dwarf and it will feel like any other action (since, if I understand it correctly, all actions have movement costs). The downside to this method is that you'll need to use larger values so that you can have smaller gradients in movement (so not 1 vs 2 but more like 2 vs 3 or 4 vs 5).
Toaster_Team
966
If you want to keep things simple, I would go with making movement cost more for the dwarf. That way you could just list the movement cost in energy for the dwarf and it will feel like any other action (since, if I understand it correctly, all actions have movement costs). The downside to this method is that you'll need to use larger values so that you can have smaller gradients in movement (so not 1 vs 2 but more like 2 vs 3 or 4 vs 5).
I don't want to have higher increments, it would clash with the rest. The highest score for a stat would be 10 which is pretty much legendary.
What I did was to add a movement value (the boot icon):
This means the Rogue can move 4 tiles free of charge (energy-wise). Any extra tiles beyond that would cost 1 energy:
Regarding armor, I'll just go more or less with this:
As for the armor, in the example you quoted I intended the character to still take damage to HP anytime damage exceeded the armor's protection value.
Light armor provides 1 protection and various durability depending on the armor.
Medium armor provides 2 and various durability depending on the armor.
Heavy armor provides 3 and various durability depending on the armor.
Exceptional/unique armor would provide 4 (and various durability).
For example, you could have a wizard garb and the cloak. While both provide a protection of 1, the durability for the cloak if 10 while the wizard garb is 5.
Every time the character is struck, damage is reduced by the protection of the armor. For example, a damage of 4 would be reduced by 1, meaning 3 damage would be taken.
Durability goes down depending on the damage taken. Here I have two choices:
a) durability is reduced by the damage protection. For example, taking a hit of 4 for a cloak would reduce durability by 1.
A chain mail, with a protection of 2, would lose 2 durability.
The problem with this is that in a way in doesn't make sense. A blow of 4 should reduce durability of the cloak a more than the chain mail. So this doesn't really work.
b) Have armor lose the same durability regardless of the blow with every hit, say 1. This would make things easier to keep track of but it doesn't make sense either. A powerful blow should damage armor more than a light one...
I don't want the second skin option. So I need to find a better solution for durability management.
hedge1
862
I fixed the spreadsheet. It should make more sense to you now. It also seems to indicate that you can go with grazings for anything that's not 6-6, which really surprised me. You can grab it here and run tests for various combat values for balancing, if you want.
Die Based Combat Excel Tester
As for armor durability, based upon what you've said already you probably have two options:
1. Reduce durability by one each damage you get hit. It's simple, keeps numbers low, and intuitive. It will also closely match my system, which is where durability is reduced by the protection value.
2. Your original system, which is that durability is reduced by the damage above the protection value.
The problem with #2, as I mentioned above, is that you can then be invincible by simply having a high enough protection value. But you seem to constantly be leaning that way because fundamentally you want harder blows to deal extra damage to armor. And while you could make it where the full damage of any blow reduces the durability of armor, that would force large durability values, which I'm sure you don't want. All in all, if you want the mechanic you've outlined, you'll just have to ensure armor values stay low enough and damage values high enough to avoid the invincibility issue.
I should add that I love the graphics so far.
Die Based Combat Excel Tester
As for armor durability, based upon what you've said already you probably have two options:
1. Reduce durability by one each damage you get hit. It's simple, keeps numbers low, and intuitive. It will also closely match my system, which is where durability is reduced by the protection value.
2. Your original system, which is that durability is reduced by the damage above the protection value.
The problem with #2, as I mentioned above, is that you can then be invincible by simply having a high enough protection value. But you seem to constantly be leaning that way because fundamentally you want harder blows to deal extra damage to armor. And while you could make it where the full damage of any blow reduces the durability of armor, that would force large durability values, which I'm sure you don't want. All in all, if you want the mechanic you've outlined, you'll just have to ensure armor values stay low enough and damage values high enough to avoid the invincibility issue.
I should add that I love the graphics so far.
