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)
RPG NUMBERS (LEVEL, DAMAGE, XP, ETC.).
Posts
calunio
View playlists
CloseI'm working on my RPG, but I decided not to do any monster stats, skills effects and such thing because I rather do it all at once, after the rest of the game is done.
I think I'm somehow avoiding this because it's complicated.
How do you go about balancing battle and character progression factors in RPGs?
I'm thinking something like this...
Monsters from aproximately your level need around 4 hits to die, and it would take around 20 of them to make you go to the next level.
Mmmm... that's all I got so far. I'm looking for more objective formulas. I'm curious as to how people balance this. Or is it just guessing and testing?
I think I'm somehow avoiding this because it's complicated.
How do you go about balancing battle and character progression factors in RPGs?
I'm thinking something like this...
Monsters from aproximately your level need around 4 hits to die, and it would take around 20 of them to make you go to the next level.
Mmmm... that's all I got so far. I'm looking for more objective formulas. I'm curious as to how people balance this. Or is it just guessing and testing?
To be very basic here, I like random encounters to be dangerous, yet quick, and bosses to run the gamut t to be everwhere between being battle of attrition, quick (kill it before it kills you) trials by fire, or tricky battles where status effects, by turn moves, and other things come into play.
hmm, I am not too fond of grinding, so I tend to make enemies/bosses easy and don't drag on too long (especially the normal fights).
So enemies would probably take 2 hits to kill they come in groups of 2 or 3 depending on your party size; your speed is about 1.5 to 2x the enemies; and probably a 10 minute grind (like fighting repeatedly) would be more than enough to learn a few new skills (no lv, just Ability point).
For bosses, I like to make themannoying strategic.
Of course this is pretty basic idea atm.
So enemies would probably take 2 hits to kill they come in groups of 2 or 3 depending on your party size; your speed is about 1.5 to 2x the enemies; and probably a 10 minute grind (like fighting repeatedly) would be more than enough to learn a few new skills (no lv, just Ability point).
For bosses, I like to make them
Of course this is pretty basic idea atm.
One thing to keep in mind is the learning curve. A game should generally start out very easy to let the player ease into the experience. Don't start raising the difficulty until the player has had a chance to acquire experience, treasure, items, or allies.
Also, it is probably not a good idea for enemies to just continuously get stronger in every area. A good rule of thumb is to have a really difficult area followed by a less difficult area. Also make sure that the experience a player gained is appropriate to the challenge. See the experience plateau as mentioned in this article.
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/3/
Also, it is probably not a good idea for enemies to just continuously get stronger in every area. A good rule of thumb is to have a really difficult area followed by a less difficult area. Also make sure that the experience a player gained is appropriate to the challenge. See the experience plateau as mentioned in this article.
http://rpgmaker.net/articles/3/
Darken
3952
I have a problem with planning out monster stats and exp gains because if in execution the stats turn out shit i have to change everything in excel so I just end up making and testing every battle as I go rather than planning shit out. I also rarely use savefiles because I prefer to see the EXP progression as a regular player. Any tips on this?
Darken, how are you doing encounters? When I'm testing something like Diablocide, I always know the characters' absolute minimum level (which is what bosses are based on, plus a lil' bit) since each and every encounter is planned and unique. In this case, I can just... play. As long as I don't change how much XP an enemy gives, testing just sort of happens.
If you're using random encounters, I suggest planning out how many you want a player to encounter, at roughly what level, between full heals (or at least break areas that restore SOMETHING - not all games have Trauma Inns, after all). Keep in mind that this really isn't as much as you might think; you might encounter twenty encounters in the typical pre-PS2 Final Fantasy dungeon.
Then (the rest of this really applies to ANY tranditionalish RPG, but I'm going to talk about random encounters mostly), decide on an average amount of monsters per enemy group. My base rule is three for interesting battles, but due to the nature of games being varied I say that most encounters should have PARTY SIZE - 1 to PARTY SIZE + 1 enemies. If you include a particularly strong/elite enemy, have it count as two monsters; if you have a weak minion-type enemy, include 2-3 to count as a single monster.
After you have your average encounter size, figure out how many hits you want the average PC to take before it falls. If you used my previous suggestion of ~PARTY SIZE, assume that each character is going to be hit once per turn. Do the same with enemies, setting their HP/Defense/Resistance/etc. to reflect how many hits they should be take before they fall. I like to set this equal to PARTY SIZE (note: this is why I really dislike DEF stats in my own projects - it obscures this). Using the power of math, you can now figure out how often you're going to need to heal each character before you get your next rest; BATTLE CHAIN COUNT * AVERAGE ENCOUNTER SIZE / AVERAGE NUMBER OF HITS A PC CAN TAKE.
...yeah, this is what chaos and I do for fun.
If you're using random encounters, I suggest planning out how many you want a player to encounter, at roughly what level, between full heals (or at least break areas that restore SOMETHING - not all games have Trauma Inns, after all). Keep in mind that this really isn't as much as you might think; you might encounter twenty encounters in the typical pre-PS2 Final Fantasy dungeon.
Then (the rest of this really applies to ANY tranditionalish RPG, but I'm going to talk about random encounters mostly), decide on an average amount of monsters per enemy group. My base rule is three for interesting battles, but due to the nature of games being varied I say that most encounters should have PARTY SIZE - 1 to PARTY SIZE + 1 enemies. If you include a particularly strong/elite enemy, have it count as two monsters; if you have a weak minion-type enemy, include 2-3 to count as a single monster.
After you have your average encounter size, figure out how many hits you want the average PC to take before it falls. If you used my previous suggestion of ~PARTY SIZE, assume that each character is going to be hit once per turn. Do the same with enemies, setting their HP/Defense/Resistance/etc. to reflect how many hits they should be take before they fall. I like to set this equal to PARTY SIZE (note: this is why I really dislike DEF stats in my own projects - it obscures this). Using the power of math, you can now figure out how often you're going to need to heal each character before you get your next rest; BATTLE CHAIN COUNT * AVERAGE ENCOUNTER SIZE / AVERAGE NUMBER OF HITS A PC CAN TAKE.
...yeah, this is what chaos and I do for fun.
One thing to keep in mind is the learning curve. A game should generally start out very easy to let the player ease into the experience. Don't start raising the difficulty until the player has had a chance to acquire experience, treasure, items, or allies.
This is great advice outside of our personal microcosm but in the community, one problem is that people unfailingly judge a game based on the first few minutes/battles. So, for instance, people said the combat in Wanderer was easy/boring because I was trying to keep the first few fights simple and easy whereas later on it becomes more intricate and challenging but in say, a demo, there are only the first few fights to judge from.
If you're using random encounters, I suggest planning out how many you want a player to encounter, at roughly what level, between full heals (or at least break areas that restore SOMETHING - not all games have Trauma Inns, after all). Keep in mind that this really isn't as much as you might think; you might encounter twenty encounters in the typical pre-PS2 Final Fantasy dungeon.
Then (the rest of this really applies to ANY tranditionalish RPG, but I'm going to talk about random encounters mostly), decide on an average amount of monsters per enemy group. My base rule is three for interesting battles, but due to the nature of games being varied I say that most encounters should have PARTY SIZE - 1 to PARTY SIZE + 1 enemies. If you include a particularly strong/elite enemy, have it count as two monsters; if you have a weak minion-type enemy, include 2-3 to count as a single monster.
This reminds me a LOT of D&D 4E design/DM philosophy.
Well in Wanderer you already start with a powerful hero so it's kind of a moot point. But I didn't dislike them because they were easy, I disliked them because they were drawn out.
I am thinking more of the comment you made that I should give the enemies some skills. They had skills which they used frequently. I just feel if I hadn't been trying to make the beginning easy/simple, more strategic depth/complexity/challenge would have come through.
Max: Yeah, I even use 4E terminology ("elite," "minon," "encounter," etc.). There is a LOT to learn from the awesomeness that is D&D 4E, even for turn-based jRPGs. My current project even has Minion-type enemies that lower incoming accuracy rolls by 50% but only have 1 HP (oh hey, yet another way scripting makes games more interesting). I, uh, also don't have any damage mitigation stats, just Speed and Wisdom defenses (basically, Reflex and Will; in more VXy terms, physical evasion and magical evasion).
EDIT: Added more evidence about how I am obsessed with 4E's mechanics. I think I'll make a topic about it and how it applies to amateur jRPGs in an hour or two.
EDIT: Added more evidence about how I am obsessed with 4E's mechanics. I think I'll make a topic about it and how it applies to amateur jRPGs in an hour or two.
LightningLord2
230
For bosses, I always went for the baseline:
- Enough HP/Defense to take 100 average-damage normal attacks
- A single-hit skill that hits for 50-67% HP
- A hit-all-skill that does 33-40% HP damage
Then, I tweak around and add different things to make the boss unique.
- Enough HP/Defense to take 100 average-damage normal attacks
- A single-hit skill that hits for 50-67% HP
- A hit-all-skill that does 33-40% HP damage
Then, I tweak around and add different things to make the boss unique.
Dammit, LightningLord2, now I need to write an article on making atypical bosses while not requiring weird "puzzle" elements.
How is that WRONG, Max? Assuming every character can manage to do double their normal attack damage on average when they push their buffs/nukes/debuffs/etc., a boss would take a little over 12 turns. If you do nothing but normal attacks, that's 25 turns. This doesn't include healing/dealing with barriers/etc., but I really don't think that's so bad!
Crystalgate
694
I find statting characters and enemies fairly simple. It helps a lot if you actually know what the stats does (so far I've always seen people answer wrong whenever someone asks) and the actual consequences of raising or lowering a stat. Personally, I always rewrite the damage and hit-chance algorithm to something I'm comfortable with which I suppose makes things a bit easier. Also, I plan the stats so that I'll know in advance how much damage is going to fly around.
Experience and money is a bit tricky at first. I suggest you play trough your dungeon while fighting as much as you expect the player to and then see how much exp and gold you got. It should not be that hard to adjust afterwards, if you end up with say twice as much gold as you wanted, halve whatever gold the enemies drop. For future areas I found it easier. You can compare the new exp/price requirements to advance a level with what you required before going trough the former dungeon and then wing it a bit.
For battle length, I prefer if they last 3-5 turns. If they are to fast, you remove a lot of strategy. A defense up spell lowers the damage you take from enemy attacks, but killing the enemy prevents it from attacking which in turn also means you take less damage. Silencing an enemy prevents it from casting spells, so does killing it. Casting an attack up spell causes you to do more damage, but you lose damage by buffing instead of using an offensive skill and with battles over in two turns it's not so likely there will be enough time for the buff to earn back the lost damage. Pretty much anything that doesn't cause direct damage or heal is almost inevitable factored out by making battles to short.
To long battles can simple get boring where things changes to slowly. Seeing the enemy number dwindle is one of the joys and makes you feel that you're winning. Alternatively, one enemy fell and so did one of my party members which will not necessarily make you feel like you're winning, but things are still happening and the battle is in one way or another progressing. If after two turns you still have all enemies left, it will feel more like I'm walking on a treadmill. For bosses I thinks it's fine if no progress can be seen immediately, it's sort of the point with bosses that they are powerful adversaries which you won't get trough to easily.
Experience and money is a bit tricky at first. I suggest you play trough your dungeon while fighting as much as you expect the player to and then see how much exp and gold you got. It should not be that hard to adjust afterwards, if you end up with say twice as much gold as you wanted, halve whatever gold the enemies drop. For future areas I found it easier. You can compare the new exp/price requirements to advance a level with what you required before going trough the former dungeon and then wing it a bit.
For battle length, I prefer if they last 3-5 turns. If they are to fast, you remove a lot of strategy. A defense up spell lowers the damage you take from enemy attacks, but killing the enemy prevents it from attacking which in turn also means you take less damage. Silencing an enemy prevents it from casting spells, so does killing it. Casting an attack up spell causes you to do more damage, but you lose damage by buffing instead of using an offensive skill and with battles over in two turns it's not so likely there will be enough time for the buff to earn back the lost damage. Pretty much anything that doesn't cause direct damage or heal is almost inevitable factored out by making battles to short.
To long battles can simple get boring where things changes to slowly. Seeing the enemy number dwindle is one of the joys and makes you feel that you're winning. Alternatively, one enemy fell and so did one of my party members which will not necessarily make you feel like you're winning, but things are still happening and the battle is in one way or another progressing. If after two turns you still have all enemies left, it will feel more like I'm walking on a treadmill. For bosses I thinks it's fine if no progress can be seen immediately, it's sort of the point with bosses that they are powerful adversaries which you won't get trough to easily.
EnderX
562
Not sure it's "Wrong", but it might not be a good idea. From the outgoing damage values listed, the odds are pretty good only a small %age of rounds will be spent on actually dealing damage - pretty much every turn will be spent healing someone who was just fine until that last attack, but is now in serious trouble, or healing the team, or reviving the team because the boss got to go first and sent HP somewhere into the -50% range, or frantically trying to come up with something that can defend against the boss, or...
LightningLord2
230
The 2HKO single hit is meant to cause "Hitted Char defends, 2nd chars, the rest keeps attacking". Also, I used this formula long time ago (for simply messing with battle test, though). Plus, if you have resistance against the multi-hit thing, or simply buff your defense against it, it won't be too much for you.
How is that WRONG, Max? Assuming every character can manage to do double their normal attack damage on average when they push their buffs/nukes/debuffs/etc., a boss would take a little over 12 turns. If you do nothing but normal attacks, that's 25 turns. This doesn't include healing/dealing with barriers/etc., but I really don't think that's so bad!
This is a hypothetical situation we know almost nothing about. (Like, for instance, you are assuming a four person party and I was not.) But I guess it would totally depend on the number of turns the party had to spend healing/buffing/curing/rezzing and also on how much harder than their regular attacks they could hit. It just seemed like a lot to me, at a glance. I am generally a pretty big proponent of lower HP though.
I find statting characters and enemies fairly simple. It helps a lot if you actually know what the stats does (so far I've always seen people answer wrong whenever someone asks) and the actual consequences of raising or lowering a stat. Personally, I always rewrite the damage and hit-chance algorithm to something I'm comfortable with which I suppose makes things a bit easier. Also, I plan the stats so that I'll know in advance how much damage is going to fly around.
I wish I knew better how to do this kind of thing. (One thing I've managed to figure out is making Evasion a mathematical function of Agility in all my games, which IMHO balances the Agility stat, which is by default almost as weak in VX as it was strong in 2k3.) I wish there was a walkthrough/tutorial for getting into the script and tinkering around with the mechanics without breaking anything.
A defense up spell lowers the damage you take from enemy attacks, but killing the enemy prevents it from attacking which in turn also means you take less damage. Silencing an enemy prevents it from casting spells, so does killing it. Casting an attack up spell causes you to do more damage, but you lose damage by buffing instead of using an offensive skill and with battles over in two turns it's not so likely there will be enough time for the buff to earn back the lost damage. Pretty much anything that doesn't cause direct damage or heal is almost inevitable factored out by making battles to short.
Great observation. It is hard to balance it so that direct damage is not >all.
