STATUS EFFECTS AND ELEMENTAL ATTACKS
Posts
Pages:
1
I was wondering if monsters should just have random status effects and elemental attacks or if monsters in a certain area have certian status effects.
such as in a forest make the monsters use Fire and Poison attacks
While an undead crypt they use Ice and Blind etc
Just wondering if its better to allow the player to prepare for a certain area or if you let em try and find a setup to protect them against everything.
such as in a forest make the monsters use Fire and Poison attacks
While an undead crypt they use Ice and Blind etc
Just wondering if its better to allow the player to prepare for a certain area or if you let em try and find a setup to protect them against everything.
It's much better to limit an area to 2-3 status effects and WARN the player about it + give them a chance to prepare.
Though as much when I was playtesting and against this mob which I programmed to use every status in the game and instant death. Although it was designed ot be a kill it quick thing made me relize if there were lots of normal mobs that would be a pain.
As noted by Darken, specifically noted limitations on the setup rather than random or 'at will' options would be best.
I personally would go one step further and think for a moment, however, about the scenario. My instinctive reaction is to divide the monsters in an area into two groups, 'denizen' and 'natural foe' - in your crypt of the undead example, zombies, mummies, vampires, ghosts, etc...any kind of undead, really, would be 'denizens', while I'd expect some kind of external monsters with specifically anti-undead powers (either by fire, by light, or by holy/white/pearl/dia/whateverelsethey'recallingit) to show as 'natural foes' - things outside the expected denizens, who survive in the area specifically because they're good at resisting the denizens' predations, or because they can cause specific harm to the denizens. The 'natural foes' category doesn't have to exist, but it's a nice way to throw a little extra complication at the player. Doubly so if you care enough to code battles so that the two sides react to each other.
I personally would go one step further and think for a moment, however, about the scenario. My instinctive reaction is to divide the monsters in an area into two groups, 'denizen' and 'natural foe' - in your crypt of the undead example, zombies, mummies, vampires, ghosts, etc...any kind of undead, really, would be 'denizens', while I'd expect some kind of external monsters with specifically anti-undead powers (either by fire, by light, or by holy/white/pearl/dia/whateverelsethey'recallingit) to show as 'natural foes' - things outside the expected denizens, who survive in the area specifically because they're good at resisting the denizens' predations, or because they can cause specific harm to the denizens. The 'natural foes' category doesn't have to exist, but it's a nice way to throw a little extra complication at the player. Doubly so if you care enough to code battles so that the two sides react to each other.
I usually go about making enemy types and building common attributes for those types. For example, ghosts are physical immune and weak to Holy attacks, Wolves have higher AGL and moderate attacks with a Howl (fear) skill, Bears have high HP and have high damage and low AGL, Hawks have Wind magic etc..etc...
Then when I create or design a new area, I populate it with appropriate groups (forests have Wolves and Bears and Birds and Insects, for example). That way each area has its own kinds of tactics and rules while maintaining enemy consistency throughout the entire game.
Then when I create or design a new area, I populate it with appropriate groups (forests have Wolves and Bears and Birds and Insects, for example). That way each area has its own kinds of tactics and rules while maintaining enemy consistency throughout the entire game.
Pages:
1















