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)
HP RECOVERY... AFTER EVERY BATTLE? MADNESS! (RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)
Posts
Feldschlacht IV
View playlists
CloseI think everyone should play the Saga series from some general ideas on how to make challenging battles where every battle restores HP. They've been doing it for over a decade; the idea itself isn't new, so there are some other games to get inspiration from if you wish.
ashriot
222
Craze: that sounds like a fantastic idea. A lot more fun than the old "kill the party of slimes" concept.
Skie Fortress
2394
I agree. I'm definitely going to think on monster parties with that philosophy in mind now. :D
Darken
3952
post=200167
what is this mystery philosophy i am too lazy to read earlier pages
Give players a reason to consider what target to kill first based on hints and experience. To sum it up.
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
Too little strategy and the game becomes extremely dull yes, but too much strategy and it becomes exhausting. A good balance is needed.
I seriously disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as "too much strategy." You can have too sharp of a strategy curve, and you can have too unforgiving of difficulty, but you cannot have too much strategy. That's like having too extreme of an orgasm. The more thought your game's complexities provoke, the better.
Step 3. Place an event that restores HP before and after each boss. Then have the boss have a high threat where player's have full-out strategy.
This is a completely terrible idea no matter how you look at it. Your entire dungeon's difficulty is based purely around resource management, yet this completely negates any possible need to manage resources. The player has no reason not to go all out against normal battles, and thus can never die to anything but bosses.
If you recover HP after every regular battle, how will regular troops contain strategy without coming across as a boss fight?
Yes. YES. This is EXACTLY THE POINT. Normal battles are utterly boring. REMOVE THEM. MAKE EVERY SINGLE BATTLE IN YOUR GAME A BOSS FIGHT.
post=199821
Well, I think the best way would be to make each monster in a dungeon unique. For example, a typical dragon's lair could have:
-an armored Lizardman Troop with high physical defense and a decent attack
-a somewhat defenseless Lizardman Shaman that has a weak party-wide heal and can raise an ally's physical damage
-a Goblin Zealot that uses average lightning magic against a single foe and resists all but ice magic; it has above-average evasion but low HP
-a small Dragon Whelp that has a breath attack that deals fire damage to all foes, but only average health/damage
-an elite Dragon Adolescent that has a stronger breath attack and also has a two-hit claw attack
The Dragon Adolescent would pop up less often than the other units, and it would have less allies usually. A good way to balance this is to keep enemy parties within 1 unit of the current party size. So, if the party has four people, you get to put 3-5 monsters in each group. (In a game where you don't heal after battle, you might to go from 2-5, with a focus on 3-4; too many too often can be incredibly draining. For more information on this and a good talk about EXP related to group size, read this article by Brickroad.) So, the Dragon Adolescent would take up 2 units because it's stronger than the rest of the monsters. The Goblin Zealot would take up 2/3 of a unit because it's easy to kill and only deals average damage.
What makes this a good enemy set is that in most groups the player has to establish who to kill first. Do you want to take out the buffers, or the damage-dealers? If there's a Dragon Welp mixed in, do you want to stop your mage from taking area of effect damage? (This is assuming that the game has a focus on tanking - enemies are drawn to your tank characters, which (heh) are much more durable than your mages. Helllllo, VX (and maybe XP, I honestly don't know if it has an "odds" stat.)
Basically, make enemies that compliment each other, and focus primarily on enemies that enhance damage done instead of damage mitigation. It's fine to have a few enemies that raise defense or heal, but making them appear too often makes fights drag on instead of becoming more exciting.
For the record, this is pretty much the exact method ("units") I use/d to balance Demon Tower/Diablocide/X. It's based on D&D4e.
This is what makes Dragon Quest so complex, despite the rather "simplistic" battle system. Monster parties largely compliment each other, and I always had to think about which monster to kill first. Dragon Quest makes effective use of monster parties and strategies within that monster party.
I'm much rather prefer an orgasm than Ogre Battle.
LockeZ, you're really bad being neutral about something, aren't you? THIS SUCKS or THIS IS PERFECT - but whatever, you're still wrong.
I really don't care enough about your microtantrums to lay it out for you with specific examples (Diablocide), but healing before/after the boss is terrific for the player and works in many, many games. Not all of them are about resource management. I'll concede that it's silly for certain games to heal before a boss, like in a hardcore dungeon crawler or Dragon Quest or early Final Fantasy games - although not every game is stuck in the mud.
LockeZ your post is also contradicting itself as well but I feel like I have a grudge against you from some other topics so whatever, nyah nyah nyah go away
I also don't think that bosses always have to be at the end of a dungeon, but that's another topic altogether.
LockeZ, you're really bad being neutral about something, aren't you? THIS SUCKS or THIS IS PERFECT - but whatever, you're still wrong.
I really don't care enough about your microtantrums to lay it out for you with specific examples (Diablocide), but healing before/after the boss is terrific for the player and works in many, many games. Not all of them are about resource management. I'll concede that it's silly for certain games to heal before a boss, like in a hardcore dungeon crawler or Dragon Quest or early Final Fantasy games - although not every game is stuck in the mud.
LockeZ your post is also contradicting itself as well but I feel like I have a grudge against you from some other topics so whatever, nyah nyah nyah go away
I also don't think that bosses always have to be at the end of a dungeon, but that's another topic altogether.
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
LockeZ, you're really bad being neutral about something, aren't you? THIS SUCKS or THIS IS PERFECT - but whatever, you're still wrong.
I feel like I have a grudge against you from some other topics so whatever, nyah nyah nyah go away
Well, obviously I say these things for the purpose of debate. The entire point of this forum is debate about game design. That's the only reason I come here, so I can pick people's brains and see how various ideas stand up against each-other. If I thought an idea was just kind of pretty much alright, I would either pick a different topic to talk in, or I would try to think up some kind of reason why it wouldn't work, and debate from that angle despite it not being how I really thought.
The discussion that comes out of the debate is the useful part of this forum, not deciding what's best or worst. Obviously no one idea is ever perfect, or people would be out there making perfect games. Seeing how ideas bounce off of each-other is the goal here. You have to get people to talk about their ideas, and to do that you have to challenge their ideas.
Sorry if it seemed like I was just being a dick about people's ideas, that's never my goal. (Unless their idea is a DBZ game.)
MAKE EVERY SINGLE BATTLE IN YOUR GAME A BOSS FIGHT.
That sounds really exhausting bro, and seriously diminishes the impact of every boss fight. Every fight challenging? Sure. Boss fight challenging? Hell no.
Craze's idea is pretty good, and I've heard similar ideas in other threads. Once you hit age 5 you realize that instead of randomly attacking enemies, you should focus on them one at a time (as to reduce the total threat of the enemy party quickly) but it's even more interesting to make them learn what is a threat and what can be ignored. It makes for a much more dynamic and intense battle.
As for the EVERY BOSS BATTLE thing, I think I made a post earlier about difficulty curves. A good game has a difficulty curve that is ever-so-slightly unpredictable:
-If the curve is flat, every battle is the same difficulty. If they're too easy, the player gets bored. If they're too hard, the player gets exhausted and stressed, and you remove that feeling of "holy shit I kicked that guy's ASS" because the next battle will be just as hard.
-If the curve scales linearly, as most games do, every battle gets a little harder (for example, the deeper in a dungeon you go, the monsters get tougher, until you reach the very hard boss). This is a better design, but is still predictable because a player knows that when he goes down the stairs, there will be either harder monsters or a boss.
-If the curve is random, each battle could be really hard or stupidly easy. This is bad because the player can't use what he's learned to survive because he never knows what's next, and it feels extremely schizophrenic.
The best way to build a curve (in my humble, humble opinion) would be to have it scale linearly with spikes here and there to keep the player on his toes. Throw a miniboss in halfway through the dungeon. Have a floor where imprisoned monsters have just broken out and the battles become much harder. Don't try and kill your player out of left field, but throw something hard so he doesn't always know what to expect and although he's confident he can handle it, there's just that little niggling doubt in the back of his mind...
As for the EVERY BOSS BATTLE thing, I think I made a post earlier about difficulty curves. A good game has a difficulty curve that is ever-so-slightly unpredictable:
-If the curve is flat, every battle is the same difficulty. If they're too easy, the player gets bored. If they're too hard, the player gets exhausted and stressed, and you remove that feeling of "holy shit I kicked that guy's ASS" because the next battle will be just as hard.
-If the curve scales linearly, as most games do, every battle gets a little harder (for example, the deeper in a dungeon you go, the monsters get tougher, until you reach the very hard boss). This is a better design, but is still predictable because a player knows that when he goes down the stairs, there will be either harder monsters or a boss.
-If the curve is random, each battle could be really hard or stupidly easy. This is bad because the player can't use what he's learned to survive because he never knows what's next, and it feels extremely schizophrenic.
The best way to build a curve (in my humble, humble opinion) would be to have it scale linearly with spikes here and there to keep the player on his toes. Throw a miniboss in halfway through the dungeon. Have a floor where imprisoned monsters have just broken out and the battles become much harder. Don't try and kill your player out of left field, but throw something hard so he doesn't always know what to expect and although he's confident he can handle it, there's just that little niggling doubt in the back of his mind...
The imprisoned monsters idea is pretty good. I agree with that post on the whole, too. For more about what slashphoenix is saying, read this article by kentona.
I should just make a required reading topic.
I should just make a required reading topic.
boos405
636
Thanks for pointing that out and making it clear Craze & Slashpheonix. Both sound good methods to take with regular battles.
LockeZ:
If the game tests a player's brain too much they'll get exhausted. Strategy is better building up over the game so the player can adjust with the options they have and have the chance to think over them, if you have too much strategy some player's won't be able to cope and it'll be all WTF!? to them.
I'm sorry what? I don't get why having a heal point before the boss is "terrible"?
"If the game tests a player's brain too much they'll get exhausted.". As well as that, if every boss is a boss fight then the player would spend forever stuck in the first dungeon.
LockeZ:
I seriously disagree with the idea that there is such a thing as "too much strategy." You can have too sharp of a strategy curve, and you can have too unforgiving of difficulty, but you cannot have too much strategy. That's like having too extreme of an orgasm. The more thought your game's complexities provoke, the better.
If the game tests a player's brain too much they'll get exhausted. Strategy is better building up over the game so the player can adjust with the options they have and have the chance to think over them, if you have too much strategy some player's won't be able to cope and it'll be all WTF!? to them.
This is a completely terrible idea no matter how you look at it. Your entire dungeon's difficulty is based purely around resource management, yet this completely negates any possible need to manage resources. The player has no reason not to go all out against normal battles, and thus can never die to anything but bosses.
I'm sorry what? I don't get why having a heal point before the boss is "terrible"?
Yes. YES. This is EXACTLY THE POINT. Normal battles are utterly boring. REMOVE THEM. MAKE EVERY SINGLE BATTLE IN YOUR GAME A BOSS FIGHT.
"If the game tests a player's brain too much they'll get exhausted.". As well as that, if every boss is a boss fight then the player would spend forever stuck in the first dungeon.
post=200390I am flattered.
The imprisoned monsters idea is pretty good. I agree with that post on the whole, too. For more about what slashphoenix is saying, read this article by kentona.
I should just make a required reading topic.
THAT was one of the places I remember hearing about difficulty curves. Yea, those articles are amazing and people should read them or be burned at the stake. Not that I agree with everything kentona says, but they'll get you thinking and give you ideas.
As far as my game goes, I'm going through and revamping all of the battles as it is, and I'll have to add a little more strategy to the first dungeon's fights. I've got wolves and bees right now - the bees die fast but deal a lot of damage, and the wolves do good damage and have good hp. I should probably add another type and mix it up a bit... hmm. I like the full-heal after fighting mechanic, and as long as the battles don't get too repetitive I think it'll work out.
As far as my game goes, I'm going through and revamping all of the battles as it is, and I'll have to add a little more strategy to the first dungeon's fights. I've got wolves and bees right now - the bees die fast but deal a lot of damage, and the wolves do good damage and have good hp. I should probably add another type and mix it up a bit... hmm. I like the full-heal after fighting mechanic, and as long as the battles don't get too repetitive I think it'll work out.
Another common type that I throw in is the HP tank. This guy isn't very powerful or anything, but because of his high HP they last longer. It also will tempt the player to use their powerful skills to finish them off (especially if you make that enemy a "timebomb" type enemy, where after X many rounds this rather meek HP tank will unleash a devastating attack, adding to the impetus to finishing them off sooner rather than later).
..if that makes any sense at all.
..if that makes any sense at all.
That could make for a crazy battle. A giant tank monster that does steady low damage while you have to fight off hi-damage/low-hp guys already has strategy (take out the fast guys to avoid damage, then finish off the low one).
Now if the tank's gonna explode, you have to finish him off quickly (which is hard because of his HP) but you also have to worry about the hi-damage guys, forcing you to find a good combination of damage-all and high-damage-single-target spells to take them ALL down quickly. Or you heal through the hi-damage guys to take out the tank first. Or you take out the fast guys and try and shield and eat the explosion damage. Or you run away.
The dynamics!!
Now if the tank's gonna explode, you have to finish him off quickly (which is hard because of his HP) but you also have to worry about the hi-damage guys, forcing you to find a good combination of damage-all and high-damage-single-target spells to take them ALL down quickly. Or you heal through the hi-damage guys to take out the tank first. Or you take out the fast guys and try and shield and eat the explosion damage. Or you run away.
The dynamics!!
Crystalgate
694
post=200405
Another common type that I throw in is the HP tank. This guy isn't very powerful or anything, but because of his high HP they last longer. It also will tempt the player to use their powerful skills to finish them off (especially if you make that enemy a "timebomb" type enemy, where after X many rounds this rather meek HP tank will unleash a devastating attack, adding to the impetus to finishing them off sooner rather than later).
..if that makes any sense at all.
You probably should time bomb it then. Enemies are (usually) to stupid to know who they should hit, but a player will always hit the HP tanks last unless it poses some form of threat. Once every other enemy is dead,a tank isn't any threat, but will last long due to it's durability. Battles that are very easy, but takes time are rather pointless. But if you were to timebomb the tank then the players has to take it serious. They may even choose to let lower HP enemies live a bit longer in favor of defusing the timebomb. That's one of the few ways enemies can "tank" without outright preventing the player from targeting whoever they want to target.
