• Add Review
  • Subscribe
  • Nominate
  • Submit Media
  • RSS

Gameplay Suggestions Wanted

I'm seeking good concrete suggestions for how to improve the battles and gameplay of To Arms!

Now is the time to do it, being between the Vanguard and final version releases.

A few caveats:

1) If your suggestion does not demonstrate at least basic knowledge of the battle balance and character options available in To Arms! consistent with at least one full playthrough, I can't act on it. This isn't a matter of discrimination, there's just too many factors you don't know about that your "fixes" might be breaking.
2) If most of the responses I get aren't phrased as concrete suggestions (I'm not looking for critique here, just suggestions) or if there's any outright abuse I'm going to have to wish this blog to the cornfields.

EDIT:
Here's what I have so far:

1) Reduce enemy Evasion by some factor whilst still being true to the convention of designing enemies in the same manner as PCs. Alternatively, increase weapon accuracy (note that this would not make the game easier, just increase hit-rate across the board) for all weapons by some factor.

2) This is an easy one--give the player a very large amount of healing items to start with.

3) Consider slightly raising the efficacy of all skilling items.

4) This is the toughest one so far...add additional/optional fights (perhaps even an extra mission?) to give players more of an opportunity to experiment/grind.

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
Sailerius
did someone say angels
3214
I haven't played it yet, but I'll give it a shot sometime in the next couple days and let you know what I come up with.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Thanks dude.
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
I wrote you four pages of suggestions here.
Hmm... Let's see...

1) I think improving the maps (not in terms of graphics but in terms of playability) would help a good deal. I like that the game is focused on battles, but some amount of exploring might be nice. If the maps do absolutely nothing except serve as backdrop, it makes you wonder why they're there - it's clearly not like you spent a lot of time making them exceedingly pretty. They're passable at best. I would try to at least give the maps some purpose in the game. I thought the second mission was much better balanced in that respect. I would have preferred it if the first was the same way.

2) Real save points. The system you use in the first mission doesn't really work. The fact that I can't even access the menu after saving right before the first boss kept me stuck there for a while because I had a lot of points built up and hadn't bought skills yet

3) Give more jp/reduce cost for skills and/or the ability to 'resell' your skills. While you're probably right that every skill has a use, they don't all have a use for everybody. There were several skills that, for my playstyle & party combo, I found to be lackluster. I really wished I hadn't spent all that jp on it. I saved up a lot for skills I used once and promptly forgot about. I guess if the game had been longer, I wouldn't have been so disappointed because I would have eventually had the jp for all of them, but it was still frustrating.

4) Make skill and item effects clearer. The battles are all a bit too hard (or at least too close) to be wasting turns trying to figure out the exact effect of a skill. If the battles are gonna require strategy, I need to know exactly what my skills do, and I don't really have to play around to find out.

5) Even out enemy damage potential. As it stands, enemies can do between 100-400 dmg per turn or something like that. If they all happen to choose the 400 dmg per turn attacks, you can destroyed really quickly in a way that feels really cheap. I would reduce the range of damage the enemies can deal to avoid making the player feel like they died cheaply. If enemies dealt 200-300 instead, for example, it wouldn't feel as cheap if the enemies all randomly spammed their more powerful attacks at the same time.

6) Change the first fight. First real battle is on the world map? It's not a great battle. It feels like a random encounter, and it's not a particularly interesting fight. Frankly, there's not a whole lot of ways that first fight could have been any less engrossing. You almost lost me right off the bat. I think a better "first taste" for the battles could do wonders for my (and other's) perception of the overall game

Anyway, hope these suggestions help
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
@Solitayre:

Care to summarize? The only concrete thing I took away from your review was to lower the evasion rate of each enemy by perhaps 5%. I'm sure there's other stuff in there, maybe you could help boil it down or synthesize it into a bulleted/numbered list. Concentrating, of course, on the raw gameplay.

@fredo:

Thanks for your thoughts.

1) I thought they were very pretty but everyone's standards are different. It was a conscious design decision for To Arms! to have as much dungeon exploring and puzzle solving and "field" gameplay as Final Fantasy Tactics which is to say none.

2) If by the first boss you mean "Urclaw" (who is the actual first boss) then you should in fact have full access to the menu before that battle. Could you clarify what is going on?

3) In terms of the amount of JP given, that is a fairly fine balance--I don't want to give out "too much" as I want players to acquire the full suite of skills over the course of several episodes, not just one. A limitation of the episodic form. Unfortunately, the ability to resell skills is right out of the question since the script for the JP system is entirely out of my hands--unless Yanfly feels like making some changes to an outdated version of his amazing battle engine.

4) What skills did you feel were unclear? Don't say "all of them" because it will have the same meaning effect as saying "none of them". If there are a specific few that didn't work "As advertised" I will gladly change their descriptions.

5) The amount of damage enemies inflict really depends upon player strategy and enemy AI and the situation in the battle, and does not depend much upon random chance. Can you list some situations where the enemy damage spiked?

6) I thought it would be best not to overwhelm the player with strategic options and enemy strategies off the fight. It is more or less a "Random Encounter" except for the fact that it is scripted. The idea was to teach the battle system before I started throwing curve balls at you. Was that a bad idea?
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
Okay, let's see here.

1. Just kill enemy evasion. Normal enemies shouldn't be evading at all. I am not sure where you pulled this 9-10% number from but it felt like way, way more than that. If I miss it should be because I'm blind, or the enemy did something to make me miss, not because the game just decided I missed. (Are you sure the algorithm is working the way you think it does?) Even the enemy archers shouldn't have high evasion; the point of being an archer is to sacrifice heavy armor/HP of the front line classes for higher damage. If they dodge a lot on top of that then their weakness is nullified. Cutjack can have some, but a lot less than what he had. Rhea shouldn't have any since Engineers are supposed to be slow and vulnerable, from my understanding. A savvy player will conclude she is the biggest threat and focus on her, and should be rewarded for this behavior by being able to quickly eliminate a threatening foe. Right now you're lucky if half your hits land on her.

You can add enemies with some evasion later in the game, once the party has a wider range of skills and is more adaptable to deal with it.

2. Magic spells should never miss at all, ever. Not only are mages giving up the HP/combat bonuses of other classes but their spells cost PP and sometimes a lot of them. To have a spell miss can be a huge loss. Mages need to be able to do damage. It is what they are for.

3. Kill enemy crit rate in the castle, a critical on Horace probably means death, and most enemies are faster than you.

3. Why does the war priest's heal inflict a stun? This seems unnecessary.

4. Make Janos' heal just work 100% of the time. If he's healing himself it means something has gone wrong and having it not work could be catastrophic.

5. Some moves should have higher priority. Heals should happen first. If the party is going to take twenty hits in the upcoming round, I need to be able to heal. Similarly, Janos' Battle Orders could be good ideas to give high priority so they happen first thing in a round, in case something happens that he needs to react to, and he can shift the whole party to adjust for whatever he needs them to be doing at the time..

6. Limit enemy bosses to one potion per battle, or otherwise limit their healing capability (not sure if there's already anything in place that does this.)

That is all I can think of for now regarding the combat.
Max: I'm having trouble remembering exactly which skills, but here's a few I remember being sort of surprised about. I didn't realize the basic healing skill could daze. It would be nice if any and all the attack skill had a measure of how much damage they do compared to each other in the description (maybe just a power rating or something) The flame arrow skill confused me a bit - what does it do? Is the flame arrow more powerful, or is it just elemental? Do enemies even have elemental weaknesses? I never noticed any, and I couldn't even tell you what the elements in this game were. I remember being annoyed that Alchemist's Fire used so much MP because I didn't realize till I bought it. The quick-brew skills also aren't clear enough that they use gold - I assumed from the description that they'd use enemy drops or something.

As for the graphics: They are pretty. It's a nice chipset and you use it competently. I guess they're just not interesting. It's a common chip, and I just didn't feel like there was any area where I was like "Oh, cool!" in any way. The mapping was competent, but the area design was decently bland.

Yeah, I meant Urclaw. I saved and then after that, the cutscene would start immediately.

Enemy damage: A few enemies felt like they varied too much. Anybody who can cast that fire spell that Horace has too had this problem because they could suddenly more than triple their damage output. They would go from dealin 100 hp a turn to 300-450. That's a huge jump. If a bunch of enemies all spam it together, you might as well reset, and that feels sort of cheap. If they don't use it at all, it's an easy win, and that feels cheap too.

Also, archers were annoying because their attack all ability feels a bit strong (even for my own archer, I thought that the damage was a bit too much - maybe halve damage and halve the wait time?) They can either deal 100-150 HP to one, or 100 to all (which translates to 700 HP damage overall against a full party - that's a 700% increase in damage!) That's just too much of a spike


Oh, also, because Solitayre reminded me: I love the idea of a healing spell that dazes - it's an interesting strategic option. However, I really think you could have a weak healing spell that doesn't daze and a strong one that dazes. As it is, the basic healing spell feels a bit too weak for the daze effect.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Soli:

1) No, I'll explain why on Tuesday.

2) I'll think about it.

3) See #2.

3 The Second) Flavor means a lot to me. It should maybe be a little stronger. Also see my response to fredo below.

4) No.

5) You have total control on this. It is based on unit agility which is totally yours to manipulate. A higher-speed heal would cost more PP. If you really want a heal to go off, try having an archer or berserker do it. Yes, they have to give up a turn of attacking do so. Yes, that is an intentional strategic choice.

6) I'll think about it. (They get two per battle, at least in Episode One.)

@Fredo:


Flame Arrow is just elemental. It's great against undead.

I thought Quick-Brew skills said "turn gold into potion" in their description. I'll check.

You didn't think the areas with the lightmaps had a little 'panache'? I've never claimed to be a great mapper, but I'm glad I've graduated to competent in someone's eyes.

Ah...the save BEFORE that save (like there are no battles or anything in between) gives you access to the menu....yeah that area is kind of awkward. I'm not sure how to fix it..

Spell damage is not based on probabilistic components but deterministic ones, especially behind the scenes factors like the Intelligence (SPI) stat which is modified in lots of subtle ways.

"Volley" misses A LOT. It has 75% accuracy and then you take evasion out of THAT. If it was hitting a lot in your game, that's just random chance.

And Episode 2 (lol like I'll make Episode 2 with reception being it is) is going to have that in the form of Healing Sisters and War Priests and Alchemists. War Priests give up speed for being able to heal, hit, and tank.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
I think, Solitayre, that a lot of the problem extends from the fact that you want To Arms! to be balanced like a traditional Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest style RPG in which both sides always hit if they're not blind. In reality, it's balanced more like Dungeons & Dragons (4E, which has the LEAST missing of all D&D editions) in which case "making contact" with an attack is equally as important as the damage you do. In general, everyone has higher damage output, lower HP, and higher evasion. "To-Hit" rolls are important. In a standard JRPG, you always hit unless you're doing something wrong, but you don't always deal meaningful damage. In To Arms! it's reversed, you always do meaningful damage unless you're doing something worng, but you don't always hit. Making it so that not every attack hits gave me two more constants to play with, accuracy and evasion. Both can be manipulated by player and AI choices (yes the game does actually have a working AI, although I can't take much credit for it, Yanfly is a genius) adding more strategic depth.

The result is that To Arms! is not harder or easier than a standard JRPG. It's just different. I think you are very used to games that attempt to have a very 'typical' balance and are unduly frustrated by missing. This is not something that I think anyone's who's played a tabletop RPG would be bothered by. Yes, missing can be frustrating. It also makes hitting more rewarding. And enemies missing, incidentally, can be VERY fun. A good example of a game where Evasion matters a lot on both sides is Front Mission 4, where trying to increase your Evasion is just as valid as increasing your HP, if not more so and having a 54% evasion rate makes you feel like a total badass. To Arms! has a lot of the same options. You can build an evasion-based character/party. Try seeing how high you can get the Evasion of your own archers and berserkers while using certain skills and equipment. You can manipulate the Accuracy of attacks as well. A Longsword is more accurate but a War Axe is more damaging. It is a great alternative to just having each weapon being a 'better' verison of the next one.

Spells having an evasion rate is something I'm on the fence about. I don't really want super-fast characters to just loldodge spells. But I DO want to making Spell Accuracy decrease when blind. I'm not sure how to script one without the other.

Furthermore, To Arms! is FAIR in an unorthodox way. Humanoid nemies are built using the same exact algorithms as PCs, they're just a few levels lower. Equipment bonuses are applied normally. This is a kind of internal consistency I'm fairly dedicated to. For instance, Rhea has good Evasion not because I decided she should have good Evasion, but because I decided she'd be equipped with "Nightstalker Leather" to increase her defenses. A standard enemy Engineer wearing, for instance, baseline leather armor would have much worse evasion.

3. Kill enemy crit rate in the castle, a critical on Horace probably means death, and most enemies are faster than you.

I may be misremembering, but as I recall enemies in the Castle do not have critical hits. You might be thinking of the Knight skill "Power Attack" which can FUCK Horace up. Try debuffing the Knight's damage (Enfeeble or Captain's Challenge) or restricting him to physical attacks only (Taunt) or having high evasion (Power Attack has shit accuracy) or buffing your Defense (Hold the Line!!!) or quickly eliminating the Knight (Lightning Bolt works best) as the Knight always goes last. The sheer number of possibilities here is important--there is no one right way to play To Arms! (Alternatively, you might be thinking of the increase that enemy Pikemen see in their damage after a self-buff.)
Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
I have played pen and paper-based RPGs before and was very, very bothered by the missing in to Arms. No one likes missing, in CRPGs or tabletops or otherwise. D&D players have long been annoyed that the miss rate is so high, especially among low level parties that lack the capability to significantly modify their stats. D&D lowers the miss rate in every addition, and many players use modified rules that allow for both the attacker and defender to roll out of frustration for the unduly high dodge rate. There's also a factor to this that probably doesn't seem important at first glance, but is actually crucial to this kind of game. Players make attack rolls themselves. They are directly interacting with the game. If a player rolls badly, they might be annoyed, but at least they know why their attack failed. A good GM might even let them know by about how much they missed and nudge the player in the direction of using a particular ability or tool that would help them score a hit. To Arms has none of this. Everything happens behind the scenes and the player feels divorced from anything happening in front of him.

You seem to be pretty committed to what a lot of people are telling you is a really bad design choice. Why? Because this is your "vision?" I shall tell you something that I think a lot of RM developers don't understand and really need to learn: your "vision" doesn't mean squat if the resulting game is unplayable. So you made a game according to your grand design, and the game is a horribly frustrating experience. In the above post you also are complaining about the lukewarm reception (though 200 downloads in less than two weeks doesn't sound too bad to me.). If only people were more open-minded and accepted your "vision!"

Sorry, but as a player this isn't acceptable to me. If you want this game to be successful, and especially if you expect to take this game commercial eventually, you need to find a compromise between what you want and what your players think is fair. So you decided to make a game based on D&D mechanics. I think that's a great idea that has a lot of merit. But you have to be willing to accept when something like a 25% hit rate doesn't translate well from a tabletop to a CRPG experience. When so many people are telling you that the evasion rate is horrible, it makes them want to break things, that it makes the game frustrating and terrible and unplayable, you need to be willing to say "maybe this evasion thing isn't working out and I should explore alternatives." The answer isn't "well they just don't understaaaaand." Accept that this might mean rebuilding the entire game from the ground up. That is a possibility, definitely not the only one but still possible and as a developer, you probably understood that going in. When something in your game isn't working, if people hate something, even if it is the whole reason you made the game to begin with, you have to be willing to change or adapt it, or at least not complain if the game doesn't do well.

Right now you have a game with frustrating mechanics, and you want a larger audience, and these things aren't reconcilable. If you want a larger audience, you have to be willing to make the game more accessible. If you create something and your intended audience rejects or misinterprets your work, this is not your audience's fault, it is yours. Someone with your writing experience must have heard this before. It applies in game design as well as writing. If people don't like your game, maybe you did something wrong? I think I did a pretty good job telling you what I thought those things were. I hope you will try to apply some of this instead of write it off as narrow-mindedness or me just being unwilling or unable to enjoy your games. I wanted to enjoy this and with more work I think it could be great. But sometimes a game just needs more work.

And Episode 2 (lol like I'll make Episode 2 with reception being it is)

This really irritated me, because it is indicative of a pattern you've been showing lately. You release a work and then refuse to ever work on it again if it does not receive some quota of praise and adulation? You are essentially holding your own work hostage, demanding that people praise you if they want to see more. This behavior is, frankly, disgusting, because it suggests you don't even have appreciation for your own craft, and its an especially a crappy thing to do in this case because you'd be throwing your teammates under the bus. You don't seem to have any interest in improving, only in being told your work is already great and wonderful. You don't create new works as artistic expression or out of a desire to get better, you do it under the presumption, nay, the expectation, that you will be praised for it. This is a self-defeating attitude because you are hobbling your own ability to improve yourself. That's unfair to both yourself and your fans who have enjoyed your work in the past.

Don't create a work for praise. Create it to improve yourself. Praise will come on its own.
Why do you waste your energy.. He already said what you had to say didn't matter much..
TFT
WHOA wow wow. two tails? that is a sexy idea...
445
i hope legion listens to the solid advice of someone who has made nothing.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
comment=37445
made nothing.
hmm
Ciel
an aristocrat of rpgmaker culture
367
comment=37449
i hope legion listens to the solid advice of someone who has made nothing.
Your makerscore isn't high enough to have an opinion...

yeah just keep being proud of all that makerscore you got as the esteemed creator of 'riot grrl' and a rpgmaker frogger port lmao

I think, Solitayre, that a lot of the problem extends from the fact that you want To Arms! to be balanced like a traditional Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest style RPG in which both sides always hit if they're not blind. In reality, it's balanced more like Dungeons & Dragons (4E, which has the LEAST missing of all D&D editions) in which case "making contact" with an attack is equally as important as the damage you do.


That's not good at all. A game is supposed to be a player interacting with a specified set of mechanics to overcome a challenge. When you press attack and a random number generator determines the outcome it's not a person interacting with the game because the success or failure of the choice is completely out of the player's hands. That's why people instinctively don't like it. They are following the rules and mechanics provided by the game and utilizing them as suggested, but HEY SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND SOMETIMES IT DOESNT AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT LOL. Yeah that is great game design! Like j*sus I can see how this may have helped pen and paper games thirty years ago but it is archaic and silly now.

If you want making contact to be important then devise a way for the player's skill and intelligence to be the determining factors for whether or not that happens, not totally random chance. It removes the frustration of failing despite having done nothing wrong as a player and adds another element 'woah i pulled that off like a pro i am so good at vodeo game! :feelincool: Also it is easier to balance your game when you know that the abilities will always do X damage and always hit oh mannnn why does random chance garbage still exist in game designer minds across the modern world

god save the games
I love Max's arguments because I used to make the exact same arguments back in 2004/2005.

I'm much smarter now. And handsomer. You guys have no idea.
edchuy
You the practice of self-promotion
1624
I have already made some suggestions to you known, but definitely the one that might improve the game the most is if you somehow implemented a CTB system. If you did so, you wouldn't have any argument about whether your battles are tactical from a player's perspective, in spite of a lack of enemy AI.
Posted this on the main page. Most are opinions on my experiences, but may serve as suggestions.

http://rpgmaker.net/games/1895/?comment=37539#comment37539
Pages: first 12 next last