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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCRAZE'S PROFILE
Close
a wolf can eat the equivalent of 100 hamburgers in one sitting
who needs PLOT whe nyou ahve GAY PEOPLE
who needs PLOT whe nyou ahve GAY PEOPLE
Search
I Can Delve for Miles: What Draws you to Dungeon Crawls?
I have a confession, which some people likely already know and others will be surprised by: I... I don't really like dungeon crawl RPGs.
"But Craze," you shout, "all you ever do is throw together shitty dungeon crawls!" The reason for this is that the mechanics of dungeon crawls interest me; CRAZE LIKES NUMBERS AND HATES ART is pretty much false in what I actually play. I don't like seeing numbers, except for maybe damage pop-ups (and those only sometimes); I prefer puzzle games and Sierra and europop and long walks on the beach. My dream game would be able to have the player perfectly interpret his capabilities without displaying stats or anything else in the foreground except the game itself. shumps are pretty good at this, but they are not RPGs. (No, I don't know how to make this work in an RPG.)
(Sidenote: one game, a tower defense game, that I find remarkably intuitive is Kingdom Rush, featuring some incredible and strategic TD gameplay/challenge with minimal numberz. They are there, but you don't really need them. It all just makes sense!)
So, for the people who like dungeon crawls, which typically consist of NUMBERS and SLOW PLODDING and BORING (that's a joke about holes), why do you? What makes a good dungeon crawl or a terrible one? Do you think that a streamlined dungeon crawl experience would be better than a number-crunching one? I know that there is this fear of the "streamlined" videogame that "hardcore gamers" are discussing, but, well, judge me all you want, I think that DAII/FFXIII are heavily flawed and highly entertaining games.
What's attractive (or hey, what's unattractive) about dungeon crawls?
"But Craze," you shout, "all you ever do is throw together shitty dungeon crawls!" The reason for this is that the mechanics of dungeon crawls interest me; CRAZE LIKES NUMBERS AND HATES ART is pretty much false in what I actually play. I don't like seeing numbers, except for maybe damage pop-ups (and those only sometimes); I prefer puzzle games and Sierra and europop and long walks on the beach. My dream game would be able to have the player perfectly interpret his capabilities without displaying stats or anything else in the foreground except the game itself. shumps are pretty good at this, but they are not RPGs. (No, I don't know how to make this work in an RPG.)
(Sidenote: one game, a tower defense game, that I find remarkably intuitive is Kingdom Rush, featuring some incredible and strategic TD gameplay/challenge with minimal numberz. They are there, but you don't really need them. It all just makes sense!)
So, for the people who like dungeon crawls, which typically consist of NUMBERS and SLOW PLODDING and BORING (that's a joke about holes), why do you? What makes a good dungeon crawl or a terrible one? Do you think that a streamlined dungeon crawl experience would be better than a number-crunching one? I know that there is this fear of the "streamlined" videogame that "hardcore gamers" are discussing, but, well, judge me all you want, I think that DAII/FFXIII are heavily flawed and highly entertaining games.
What's attractive (or hey, what's unattractive) about dungeon crawls?
Free Action Burst Battle System (FAB/BS Discussion)
Hey guys. Karsuman and I are making a game! It happens. The first part of developing that game is mastering the battle system, and since we are kind of taking Diablocide and making it even cooler, we would like some input on what sounds cool and what sounds aggravating/silly/worthless/etc. Please ask questions, make comments, tear ideas apart - that's why this topic exists.
A lot of this is coded already, but we're still coming up with the demo characters' skillsets, so we don't really have much to show yet. Once we get the first version of the system up, we'll have the chance to move a lot of this discussion to the game profile. For now, we don't have a game profile, so let's talk about the Free Action Burst Battle System (or, if you're a cool cat, the "FAB" or "FAB/BS").
Important: in this, I tried to explain why we made each choice. This is the Game Design & Theory forum, so let's tear apart some theory!
Overview
The FAB has three main components: Free Actions, Burst Points, and the Vanguard. The goal for the FAB is to create a battle system that has simple rules but many, many possibilities for tactical fun. A secondary goal is to allow for a feeling of flow and action; things are constantly moving, and the idea of synergy between characters is paramount. A major component of that synergy is the inclusion of Blitzers versus Nukers, as detailed in the Burst Points section.
Battles for the system are meant to be large affairs, usually four-six foes; in an actual game, there would be fewer battles than expected in most jRPGs. This is supported by the Vanguard having five slots, and the party being able to swap almost at will - at any given point, you will likely have more potential characters than there are foes.
Free Actions
You have five Actions to use each turn. It does not matter if anybody in the Vanguard has fallen, if anybody is paralyzed, or if you only have a single unit in the Vanguard: you have five Actions. The only way to lower that amount, outside of nasty and rare boss abilities, is to change characters in and out of the Vanguard (see the related section for information).
Actions are "free" in that anybody can use them. Each character has four skills, and as long as they are not in CD (Cooldown, see the Burst Points section) or you have enough BP (Burst Points), you can use them. Each character could use a single skill, or the Witch could use three skills and the Paladin two, or some other combination. The purpose of this is to promote a sense of flow; your Blitzers build BP, possibly spending an entire turn doing so, and then your Nukers expend it. Or, you could easily have your Warlock spend the first turn debuffing enemies as you see fit. The question is not "what single debuff does my Warlock use this turn," like most turn-based RPGs, but "how many times do I let my Warlock debuff this turn?" Similarly, how often does your Acolyte use Life Surge this turn - never, once, twice? Provided you have the BP, it could be cast up to five times.
Actions are not free at the same time. There are no basic attacks or zero-cost skills, and there are no items to use. Blitzers have skills on a cooldown, and every CD skill must wait at least one turn before it can be used again. (Most average at 1-2 turns.) Burst skills can be used repeatedly, but you must have built up the BP to use them. What this means is that, unless you work hard for it, you cannot have a single character dominate every turn. They'll get their time to shine, sure, but you can't put +500 ATK on your Gladiator and then have him mash Attack (this battle system doesn't even have stats, but that's a different topic).
Burst Points
Every time you deal direct damage, you earn a Burst Point.
Every time you get a critical hit or attack a foe's elemental weakness, you earn a Burst Point.
Every time you miss, you lose a Burst Point (you cannot inherently miss; the only way to do so is against enemies with evasion).
Every time you hit a elemental resistance, you lose a Burst Point (since you did deal damage, this evens out to +0 BP).
Every time you hit an elemental nullification or absorption, you lose two or three Burst Points respectively.
Enemy actions, except for specific abilities, have no bearing on your Burst Points.
There are three types of characters: Blitzers, Nukers and Hybrids. Blitzers have four cooldown skills and excel at multi-hit attacks, or abilities that earn BP in other ways. Nukers have four Burst skills, dealing large amounts of damage, healing or other effects in exchange for your built-up BP. Hybrids have two of each skill, making them versatile.
Burst Points are a party-wide resource, so anybody can add to or tap into them. Note that Burst skills do not build BP from direct damage - they can still earn/lose BP from missing, criticals, or elemental affinities. Blitzers cannot deal much damage, and Nukers cannot replenish their necessary supply of BP. FORCED PARTY SYNERGY AHOY
Vanguard
You have a bunch of dudes, of which five at a time can participate in battle. The game is over if those five units die. The other guys stand really far away, you know? For the purpose of the battle demo, there are twelve characters - four Blitzers, four Nukers, and four Hybrids.
When you use the Vanguard command to swap your party members, you cannot have already performed any Actions - as soon as a skill is used, your Vanguard is locked-in for the turn. In addition, you lose Actions if you swap more than one character!
When you swap one or zero characters into the Vanguard, you have 5 Actions that turn.
When you swap two characters into the Vanguard, you have 4 Actions.
When you swap three, four, or five characters, you have 3, 2, or 1 Action(s) to use that turn.
This is designed to encourage gradual shifts in your Vanguard, although allows you to do an OH SHIT shift if you must. If somebody is hurt, heal them or swap them out - that's your call. Be wise! Make the right decisions, or die trying! Of note: all healing abilities also revive fallen units. There are no revival abilities, because every heal allows for revival. In a game with so many characters, this only makes sense - an individual death isn't a big deal. Still, healing isn't dealing damage! Unless you're playing the Witch, who shares her drains with allies, but whatever.
Finally, I thought I'd shove the buff/debuff system in here: on top of more traditional ailments and enchantments (Sleep, Silence, Regen, etc.), buffs/debuffs have three tiers. If a skill grants an ally +2 Damage, it raises their Damage buff by two tiers. If the Damage counter was at -1, it would end at +1. Nifty! This is the only part of the system not coded yet, but I'm pretty sure I know how I'm going to go about it. The five buff/debuff counters are: Damage, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion, and Healing. Of note is that Acc/Eva buffs also affect ailment infliction/resistance. Maybe. This is one of the things that Karsuman and I are struggling with. The whole buff/debuff system is currently OH GOD DO WE REALLY WANT THIS, actually.
The best comments we could get on this are criticisms of choices/specific elements, and ideas for fun implementations. For example, a cool boss idea or a type of synergy between characters you think would be fun. Fun! Games are about fun!
Karsuman and I like fun. Perhaps we like fun too much, and try too hard to craft fun, resulting in a lack of releases. Damn.
A lot of this is coded already, but we're still coming up with the demo characters' skillsets, so we don't really have much to show yet. Once we get the first version of the system up, we'll have the chance to move a lot of this discussion to the game profile. For now, we don't have a game profile, so let's talk about the Free Action Burst Battle System (or, if you're a cool cat, the "FAB" or "FAB/BS").
Important: in this, I tried to explain why we made each choice. This is the Game Design & Theory forum, so let's tear apart some theory!
Overview
The FAB has three main components: Free Actions, Burst Points, and the Vanguard. The goal for the FAB is to create a battle system that has simple rules but many, many possibilities for tactical fun. A secondary goal is to allow for a feeling of flow and action; things are constantly moving, and the idea of synergy between characters is paramount. A major component of that synergy is the inclusion of Blitzers versus Nukers, as detailed in the Burst Points section.
Battles for the system are meant to be large affairs, usually four-six foes; in an actual game, there would be fewer battles than expected in most jRPGs. This is supported by the Vanguard having five slots, and the party being able to swap almost at will - at any given point, you will likely have more potential characters than there are foes.
Free Actions
You have five Actions to use each turn. It does not matter if anybody in the Vanguard has fallen, if anybody is paralyzed, or if you only have a single unit in the Vanguard: you have five Actions. The only way to lower that amount, outside of nasty and rare boss abilities, is to change characters in and out of the Vanguard (see the related section for information).
Actions are "free" in that anybody can use them. Each character has four skills, and as long as they are not in CD (Cooldown, see the Burst Points section) or you have enough BP (Burst Points), you can use them. Each character could use a single skill, or the Witch could use three skills and the Paladin two, or some other combination. The purpose of this is to promote a sense of flow; your Blitzers build BP, possibly spending an entire turn doing so, and then your Nukers expend it. Or, you could easily have your Warlock spend the first turn debuffing enemies as you see fit. The question is not "what single debuff does my Warlock use this turn," like most turn-based RPGs, but "how many times do I let my Warlock debuff this turn?" Similarly, how often does your Acolyte use Life Surge this turn - never, once, twice? Provided you have the BP, it could be cast up to five times.
Actions are not free at the same time. There are no basic attacks or zero-cost skills, and there are no items to use. Blitzers have skills on a cooldown, and every CD skill must wait at least one turn before it can be used again. (Most average at 1-2 turns.) Burst skills can be used repeatedly, but you must have built up the BP to use them. What this means is that, unless you work hard for it, you cannot have a single character dominate every turn. They'll get their time to shine, sure, but you can't put +500 ATK on your Gladiator and then have him mash Attack (this battle system doesn't even have stats, but that's a different topic).
Burst Points
Every time you deal direct damage, you earn a Burst Point.
Every time you get a critical hit or attack a foe's elemental weakness, you earn a Burst Point.
Every time you miss, you lose a Burst Point (you cannot inherently miss; the only way to do so is against enemies with evasion).
Every time you hit a elemental resistance, you lose a Burst Point (since you did deal damage, this evens out to +0 BP).
Every time you hit an elemental nullification or absorption, you lose two or three Burst Points respectively.
Enemy actions, except for specific abilities, have no bearing on your Burst Points.
There are three types of characters: Blitzers, Nukers and Hybrids. Blitzers have four cooldown skills and excel at multi-hit attacks, or abilities that earn BP in other ways. Nukers have four Burst skills, dealing large amounts of damage, healing or other effects in exchange for your built-up BP. Hybrids have two of each skill, making them versatile.
Burst Points are a party-wide resource, so anybody can add to or tap into them. Note that Burst skills do not build BP from direct damage - they can still earn/lose BP from missing, criticals, or elemental affinities. Blitzers cannot deal much damage, and Nukers cannot replenish their necessary supply of BP. FORCED PARTY SYNERGY AHOY
Vanguard
You have a bunch of dudes, of which five at a time can participate in battle. The game is over if those five units die. The other guys stand really far away, you know? For the purpose of the battle demo, there are twelve characters - four Blitzers, four Nukers, and four Hybrids.
When you use the Vanguard command to swap your party members, you cannot have already performed any Actions - as soon as a skill is used, your Vanguard is locked-in for the turn. In addition, you lose Actions if you swap more than one character!
When you swap one or zero characters into the Vanguard, you have 5 Actions that turn.
When you swap two characters into the Vanguard, you have 4 Actions.
When you swap three, four, or five characters, you have 3, 2, or 1 Action(s) to use that turn.
This is designed to encourage gradual shifts in your Vanguard, although allows you to do an OH SHIT shift if you must. If somebody is hurt, heal them or swap them out - that's your call. Be wise! Make the right decisions, or die trying! Of note: all healing abilities also revive fallen units. There are no revival abilities, because every heal allows for revival. In a game with so many characters, this only makes sense - an individual death isn't a big deal. Still, healing isn't dealing damage! Unless you're playing the Witch, who shares her drains with allies, but whatever.
Finally, I thought I'd shove the buff/debuff system in here: on top of more traditional ailments and enchantments (Sleep, Silence, Regen, etc.), buffs/debuffs have three tiers. If a skill grants an ally +2 Damage, it raises their Damage buff by two tiers. If the Damage counter was at -1, it would end at +1. Nifty! This is the only part of the system not coded yet, but I'm pretty sure I know how I'm going to go about it. The five buff/debuff counters are: Damage, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion, and Healing. Of note is that Acc/Eva buffs also affect ailment infliction/resistance. Maybe. This is one of the things that Karsuman and I are struggling with. The whole buff/debuff system is currently OH GOD DO WE REALLY WANT THIS, actually.
***
The best comments we could get on this are criticisms of choices/specific elements, and ideas for fun implementations. For example, a cool boss idea or a type of synergy between characters you think would be fun. Fun! Games are about fun!
Karsuman and I like fun. Perhaps we like fun too much, and try too hard to craft fun, resulting in a lack of releases. Damn.
Stats are for Sissies: Alternatives to Traditional Growth Mechanics
First off, stats can work remarkably well. I'm not saying that all RPGs ever should remove stats - especially games with lots of characters. They are the simplest way to compare characters (besides from perhaps a raw level score, but when you're looking for the best tank out of a list of twelve guys, defensive stats would be your go-to information unless you immediately knew which ones were tanks). However, not all RPGs have oodles of possible battle members, and so there are some nontraditional growth mechanics that I'd like to see used more often.
Another concession: all of these assume that HP is still a stat, whether or not it grows. There is also the assumption that there might be an "energy" or "mana" stat, although there are certainly methods to eschew those as well.
Trait-based Growth
Example Games: TESV: Skyrim, Fallout 3/New Vegas (although FO games still have normal stats), Final Fantasy XIII (FFXIII has stats in the absolute loosest sense, and they are "don't die" and "make die;" many of the traits are interesting passive abilities)
Also known as a "perk" system, I define "traits" as passive modifiers to a character's abilities. They do not necessarily have to affect battle, although I imagine they would in most cases.
How it works: if there are levels, you get +X trait points/level; if not, you might earn general, uncapped XP by fighting, or +X trait points at specific times. You spend those TP or XP to increase the ranks of traits that enhance the way a character performs.
Some example traits follow; (+X/Y/Z) means the amount for multiple ranks of the trait.
Absorption Ward Ignore (10/20/30%) of spell damage taken, turning it into MP
Eagle Eye (+15/30/45%) accuracy, (+5/10/15%) critical rate (note: accuracy in this hypothetical game is meant to bypass enemy evasion rates)
Spiked Armor Foes take (25/50/75) damage when dealing Phys damage
Tranquility Regenerate (4/8/12%) HP/turn
Ravager Deal (+10/20/30%) more Phys damage; critical hits inflict Bleeding
Earth Affinity Resist (25/50/75%) Earth damage; (+15/30/45%) ailment resistance
Parasite Restore (6/12/18%) MP upon inflicting a status ailment
Why this is more interesting: for one, the player knows exactly what's going on. +6 Magic tends to be nebulous except in the most transparent of systems, while "10% of spell damage is absorbed as MP" is easy to understand. Secondly, and more importantly for the sake of a growth mechanic, it's cool.
How this replaces stats: all the numbers really do is give a character fodder for a damage formula. Okay, well, just have that be part of a skill: "low Fire damage with a 50% chance of Burning" deals base 100 Fire damage, scaling with level or not scaling at all. Progression in a game with this system is not about the numbers getting bigger, it's about cool new ways to enhance or deal with those numbers. The mage with ranks of Absorption Ward and Parasite will feel themselves having more MP, thus being able to more consistently cast awesome spells. That's progression, my friend, and you didn't even need an Attack stat!
Elemental Affinity
Example Games: I'm sure some exist, but I can't think of any
This growth mechanic has stats in a sense, but replaces them with something more meaningful. It's based on a wheel of elements, with each element determining both that character's damage with/resistance to that form of attack, and an overall modifier. The goal for the modifiers is to have them be potentially useful for all battle members, rewarding jack-of-all-trades as well as specialists, with the likely endgame goal of specialism winning out. There is also a yin-yang give-and-take feel.
How it works: You have... a wheel of elements, with each - just read the above paragraph. Let's try this wheel:
Light - Fire - Volt - Wind - Dark - Ice - Water - Earth - Light
Light: Ailment resistance (300% being 100% universal ailment resistance, 0% being a doubled chance of incoming status effects to land)
Fire: Physical affinity (300% being 2x physical output and 1/3 physical damage taken, 0% being 1/2 and 3x)
Volt: Critical rate (300% being a cap of 90% critical chance, 0% being a 0% chance)
Wind: Evasion rate (see above, perhaps a slightly lower cap unless you had spells cause halve or null evasion)
Dark: Ailment infliction (300% being tripled ailment infliction rate, 0% being 1/3 inflict rate)
Ice: Magical affinity (see Fire, but with magical abilities)
Water: MP (300% being +lots of MP, 0% being almost no MP)
Earth: (see above, for HP)
The average starting affinity would be ~100%. Higher affinities would raise effectiveness and resistance; lower affinities would punish. A rogue might start with +50% Wind/Volt, and -50% Earth/Ice. The rogue would have higher Wind/Volt damage and resistance, higher evasion and critical rates, lower Earth/Ice damage and resistance, and lower HP/magic affinity.
For actual growth, there are multiple ways of going about it. One way is that each character has multiple elemental possibilities, through equipment or skillsets or whatever you desire, and as they spend time utilizing certain elements they increase that affinity and lower the opposite. Dealing Water damage or having Water-aligned equipment on would gradually raise Water affinity and lower Volt affinity. Another possibility is that you earn items throughout the game to apply to characters; the Flame Magatama grants +4% Fire affinity and -3% Ice affinity. As you earned them via battles, chests, plot points, whatever, you'd progress your characters in whichever way you desire.
Combining this with a restricted (or automatic) trait system could be extremely interesting - for example, characters with at least 120% Fire/160% Volt affinity could purchase <Mighty Strikes Critical hits do an additional 50% damage>, or characters with at least 200% Dark/140% Water could get <Exploitation Deal an additional 25% damage when hitting a weakness, and restore 5% MP>. This is how I recommend the system work, but it's not necessary.
Why this is more interesting: it looks like a basic stat system, but it's really not at all. The most drastic change is that it's not "+6 Magic," with the value of that increase decreasing over time. There are no diminishing returns as you grow, since everything is percent-based. With a "medium damage" Earth spell, no matter how the base damage is calculated, a 216% Ice affinity will always be just as effective. It also directly dies battle modifiers to elements, which are a great way to diversify characters in a cleverly-constructed battle system.
How this replaces stats: snflsngklsag if you don't get it by now -
I personally think the element system is overwrought and would be muuuuch better with fewer elements, but I wanted to cover the traditional Final Fantasy set. My goal with these two ideas was to emphasize meaningful progression over "+6 Magic," to make a game more interesting and rewarding.
"I finally got enough XP to level up Parasite again!" is, in my opinion, more interesting than "I don't even know what went up this level."
What are your thoughts on obliterating stats? Are you pro-stats? Why? Why not? Do you think a game that replaced stats with the trait system would be effective? GIMME YO' THOUGHTS
Another concession: all of these assume that HP is still a stat, whether or not it grows. There is also the assumption that there might be an "energy" or "mana" stat, although there are certainly methods to eschew those as well.
***
Trait-based Growth
Example Games: TESV: Skyrim, Fallout 3/New Vegas (although FO games still have normal stats), Final Fantasy XIII (FFXIII has stats in the absolute loosest sense, and they are "don't die" and "make die;" many of the traits are interesting passive abilities)
Also known as a "perk" system, I define "traits" as passive modifiers to a character's abilities. They do not necessarily have to affect battle, although I imagine they would in most cases.
How it works: if there are levels, you get +X trait points/level; if not, you might earn general, uncapped XP by fighting, or +X trait points at specific times. You spend those TP or XP to increase the ranks of traits that enhance the way a character performs.
Some example traits follow; (+X/Y/Z) means the amount for multiple ranks of the trait.
Absorption Ward Ignore (10/20/30%) of spell damage taken, turning it into MP
Eagle Eye (+15/30/45%) accuracy, (+5/10/15%) critical rate (note: accuracy in this hypothetical game is meant to bypass enemy evasion rates)
Spiked Armor Foes take (25/50/75) damage when dealing Phys damage
Tranquility Regenerate (4/8/12%) HP/turn
Ravager Deal (+10/20/30%) more Phys damage; critical hits inflict Bleeding
Earth Affinity Resist (25/50/75%) Earth damage; (+15/30/45%) ailment resistance
Parasite Restore (6/12/18%) MP upon inflicting a status ailment
Why this is more interesting: for one, the player knows exactly what's going on. +6 Magic tends to be nebulous except in the most transparent of systems, while "10% of spell damage is absorbed as MP" is easy to understand. Secondly, and more importantly for the sake of a growth mechanic, it's cool.
How this replaces stats: all the numbers really do is give a character fodder for a damage formula. Okay, well, just have that be part of a skill: "low Fire damage with a 50% chance of Burning" deals base 100 Fire damage, scaling with level or not scaling at all. Progression in a game with this system is not about the numbers getting bigger, it's about cool new ways to enhance or deal with those numbers. The mage with ranks of Absorption Ward and Parasite will feel themselves having more MP, thus being able to more consistently cast awesome spells. That's progression, my friend, and you didn't even need an Attack stat!
***
Elemental Affinity
Example Games: I'm sure some exist, but I can't think of any
This growth mechanic has stats in a sense, but replaces them with something more meaningful. It's based on a wheel of elements, with each element determining both that character's damage with/resistance to that form of attack, and an overall modifier. The goal for the modifiers is to have them be potentially useful for all battle members, rewarding jack-of-all-trades as well as specialists, with the likely endgame goal of specialism winning out. There is also a yin-yang give-and-take feel.
How it works: You have... a wheel of elements, with each - just read the above paragraph. Let's try this wheel:
Light - Fire - Volt - Wind - Dark - Ice - Water - Earth - Light
Light: Ailment resistance (300% being 100% universal ailment resistance, 0% being a doubled chance of incoming status effects to land)
Fire: Physical affinity (300% being 2x physical output and 1/3 physical damage taken, 0% being 1/2 and 3x)
Volt: Critical rate (300% being a cap of 90% critical chance, 0% being a 0% chance)
Wind: Evasion rate (see above, perhaps a slightly lower cap unless you had spells cause halve or null evasion)
Dark: Ailment infliction (300% being tripled ailment infliction rate, 0% being 1/3 inflict rate)
Ice: Magical affinity (see Fire, but with magical abilities)
Water: MP (300% being +lots of MP, 0% being almost no MP)
Earth: (see above, for HP)
The average starting affinity would be ~100%. Higher affinities would raise effectiveness and resistance; lower affinities would punish. A rogue might start with +50% Wind/Volt, and -50% Earth/Ice. The rogue would have higher Wind/Volt damage and resistance, higher evasion and critical rates, lower Earth/Ice damage and resistance, and lower HP/magic affinity.
For actual growth, there are multiple ways of going about it. One way is that each character has multiple elemental possibilities, through equipment or skillsets or whatever you desire, and as they spend time utilizing certain elements they increase that affinity and lower the opposite. Dealing Water damage or having Water-aligned equipment on would gradually raise Water affinity and lower Volt affinity. Another possibility is that you earn items throughout the game to apply to characters; the Flame Magatama grants +4% Fire affinity and -3% Ice affinity. As you earned them via battles, chests, plot points, whatever, you'd progress your characters in whichever way you desire.
Combining this with a restricted (or automatic) trait system could be extremely interesting - for example, characters with at least 120% Fire/160% Volt affinity could purchase <Mighty Strikes Critical hits do an additional 50% damage>, or characters with at least 200% Dark/140% Water could get <Exploitation Deal an additional 25% damage when hitting a weakness, and restore 5% MP>. This is how I recommend the system work, but it's not necessary.
Why this is more interesting: it looks like a basic stat system, but it's really not at all. The most drastic change is that it's not "+6 Magic," with the value of that increase decreasing over time. There are no diminishing returns as you grow, since everything is percent-based. With a "medium damage" Earth spell, no matter how the base damage is calculated, a 216% Ice affinity will always be just as effective. It also directly dies battle modifiers to elements, which are a great way to diversify characters in a cleverly-constructed battle system.
How this replaces stats: snflsngklsag if you don't get it by now -
***
I personally think the element system is overwrought and would be muuuuch better with fewer elements, but I wanted to cover the traditional Final Fantasy set. My goal with these two ideas was to emphasize meaningful progression over "+6 Magic," to make a game more interesting and rewarding.
"I finally got enough XP to level up Parasite again!" is, in my opinion, more interesting than "I don't even know what went up this level."
What are your thoughts on obliterating stats? Are you pro-stats? Why? Why not? Do you think a game that replaced stats with the trait system would be effective? GIMME YO' THOUGHTS
Skyrim Hype Thread: Undead Chicken Soup for the Dragon's Soul
If you don't know what The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is, know this: it is game where you fight dragons and can raise an army of undead chickens. Or undead elk. Or undead elves. Or undead anything-but-dragons. You don't need a dragon to be risen, because you have the power of the dragons - shouting FUS! in the dragon tongue will blast foes away; shouting FUS RO DAH! will make fanboys cream their Stormcloak Tunic.
This is not a thread about Skyrim info, although if it gets you hot and bothered, feel free to share it (hiding spoilers as necessary). If you have any questions, ask me - I'm somewhat obsessed and know a lot.
If you hated Oblivion, you'll probably still like Skyrim. Just watch this video on the voice acting and music:
If you don't think that I'm excited, please view the below decoration I made for my door a few weeks ago:
GET PUMPED.
11/11/11
This is not a thread about Skyrim info, although if it gets you hot and bothered, feel free to share it (hiding spoilers as necessary). If you have any questions, ask me - I'm somewhat obsessed and know a lot.
If you hated Oblivion, you'll probably still like Skyrim. Just watch this video on the voice acting and music:
If you don't think that I'm excited, please view the below decoration I made for my door a few weeks ago:
GET PUMPED.
11/11/11
Paying for Patience
I don't pay $60 for games in order to practice patience. If I don't pay anything for a game, I have even less reason to stick with it if it's boring.
What makes me consistently engaged in your game? How do you keep encounters (whether you have combat, diplomacy, romance, whatever as your key gameplay mechanic) fresh and exciting - or, at the very least, fast-paced?
Do you have a slow walking speed or four-second summon animations? You suck. Explain to me why you made that choice, how you're going to fix it, and why you suck.
Go.
What makes me consistently engaged in your game? How do you keep encounters (whether you have combat, diplomacy, romance, whatever as your key gameplay mechanic) fresh and exciting - or, at the very least, fast-paced?
Do you have a slow walking speed or four-second summon animations? You suck. Explain to me why you made that choice, how you're going to fix it, and why you suck.
Go.
Radiant Historia (Best jRPG)
Radiant Historia is one of the best games ever made.
It's for the DS, highly innovative while still being an easy-to-get-into traditional jRPG, has a quality story and cast (karsu-approved) and a great battle system. It has a ton of features that are so easy to implement into an RM* game, but are not LE TRADITIONALE~ so they aren't or something, but basically you should play and learn from this game.
It's about TIME TRAVEL and POLITICAL INTRIGUE and THE WORLD TURNING TO SAND. There are no biblical or latin junkwords or cackling silver-haired warriors to defeat. There are a ton of sidequests scattered throughout the game that require using time travel and logic to solve. The animation is solid, the music is terrific, this game is GET IT NOW.
CRAZE IS LEAVING FOREVER (AGAIN)
It was reallllly tempting to make a Forever's End joke in the title.
Hi guys, except, bye guys. I'm leaving for two months. I work at a summer camp. You probably know the drill by now if you talk to me at all.
I'm not actually LEAVING until Saturday, but I'll be off RMN (except to hopefully send you a few more things, NicoB).
So, uh, bye. Unless you're sending me letters, in which case you had better send me some letters.
Hi guys, except, bye guys. I'm leaving for two months. I work at a summer camp. You probably know the drill by now if you talk to me at all.
I'm not actually LEAVING until Saturday, but I'll be off RMN (except to hopefully send you a few more things, NicoB).
So, uh, bye. Unless you're sending me letters, in which case you had better send me some letters.
Japanese Translation (Minor)
Go Make me a Sandwich: Sexuality in Bayonetta (and other games)
http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bayonetta-and-the-male-gaze/
You all should really, really read this blog if you're at all interested in developing a game that has a female character. It's one of my favorite blogs, and this post is (in my opinion) one of the best.
Here's an excerpt:
The blog, Go Make Me a Sandwich, covers sexuality in videogames and D&D/MtG and how absolutely wretched the treatment and display of women are in them. This GMMAS goes far beyond "fantasy/scifi women are sluts, fix it" and shows just how bizarrely misrepresented females are.
What do you think about sexuality in videogames? Do you agree with GMMAS? Should we, as game developers, take note of gender and sexuality?
Bonus studies: True Female Characters video by Extra Credits
You all should really, really read this blog if you're at all interested in developing a game that has a female character. It's one of my favorite blogs, and this post is (in my opinion) one of the best.
Here's an excerpt:
GoMakeMeASandwich
If Bayonetta were an actual person, then it would make sense to proclaim that her sexuality is a choice and that she’s an empowering female figure. But she’s not a real woman. Everything about her was designed to be sexually appealing by a man who in his own words thinks that all women should strive to be as sexual as Bayonetta. These are not the words of someone who was looking to create a character that would turn stereotypes on their head, nor are they the words of someone who is genuinely interested in creating empowering female characters. Kamiya’s sole concern in creating Bayonetta was to create an action character who was his ideal woman and designing her for maximum sex-appeal for the straight male viewer.
The blog, Go Make Me a Sandwich, covers sexuality in videogames and D&D/MtG and how absolutely wretched the treatment and display of women are in them. This GMMAS goes far beyond "fantasy/scifi women are sluts, fix it" and shows just how bizarrely misrepresented females are.
What do you think about sexuality in videogames? Do you agree with GMMAS? Should we, as game developers, take note of gender and sexuality?
Bonus studies: True Female Characters video by Extra Credits
Hard to Choose: Engaging Monster Parties 101
This topic assumes that you have read this article by Brickroad.
A battle system that doesn't have interesting monster groups is weak, no matter how FMV-like the animations are. A cool enemy can be worthless if you engage it by its lonesome, dying too quickly. Having eight of the same foe is typically dull, even if it is more challenging. Simple balancing of enemy roles and battle size can make the most basic battle system more fun. So, how do you make monster parties engaging?
(A lot of this is based on D&D 4e, by the way.)
What I like to do is follow a few rules:
-Enemy party size is equal to hero party size, plus or minus one
-Monsters have a designated role they try to fulfill
-Monster groups are not all archetypal structures
Enemy Party Size
Enemy parties get to "purchase" units with a number of points equal to the size of the hero party at that point in the game, plus or minus one. The normal distribution for an area, assuming a party size of four, would be three three-monster parties, three five-monster parties, and five four-monster parties. This inherently means that some are easier than others, and some are a little more difficult.
Having a number of enemies roughly equal to the amount of heroes means that area-of-effect skills tend to be useful, even with low damage; that you can poison one enemy and let it sit while you pick off others; that you have to choose who to pick off first. More on that last point later.
About points: have enemies worth different amount of points. Here's an example set of monsters for a lizardmen cavern.
Angry Rhino - 2 points
Microdragon - 2 points
Lizard Tamer - 1 point
Lizard Soldier - 1 point
Lizard Assassin - 1 point
Wyrmling - 1/2 point
Two wyrmlings are as powerful as a lizard assassin. Two lizard tamers are as powerful as an angry rhino. This helps diversify enemy parties and label certain enemies as "elite" - they're tougher to take down, but by costing the same as two normal enemies, the party won't necessarily be in too much hot water. It's simply a different challenge.
Monster Roles
So, your heroes have a defender, a rogue, a mage and a healer. Why do enemies have to all be "I have attack and one elemental spell," then? Let's work on that with a very basic list of enemy roles:
Tank - Soaks up damage with higher HP and defenses (either armor or evasion). Tries to cover allies or increase their defenses/resistances
Striker - Deals consistent damage, physical or magical. It's not a lot at once, but usually accurate. Also tends to have decent evasion and critical rates, to be more rogue-esque
Brute - Deals lots of physical damage, usually to a single target. Can sometimes charge up a powerful move
Nuker - Deals lots of magical damage, to a single target or an area; might be interesting to have your brutes focus on high single-target damage and your nukers on spreading out decent (but not killer) damage
Healer - Heals allies' HP, and cures ailments - put a blind-curing foe with a brute...?
Buffer - Raises the party's capabilities, raising the nuker's damage, the tank's evasion, the brute's accuracy, etc.
Debuffer - Hinders the party, slowing them, confusing them, etc.
By applying one or two of these roles to a foe, you make each enemy more memorable and interesting. You also have to decide who to pick off first - the one curing silence on its nuker allies, or the nukers themselves? What about the lone tank that is quietly raising its defense, metapod-style?
Let's apply roles to the previous lizardmen enemy set:
Angry Rhino - 2p; brute
Microdragon - 2p; nuker/tank
Lizard Tamer - 1p; healer/buffer
Lizard Soldier - 1p; tank
Lizard Assassin - 1p; striker/debuffer
Wyrmling - 1/2p; striker
It's a set low on brutes and nukers, so there's not a lot of concentrated damage, but the strikers working with the tanks will being the groupings will tend to stay alive while being consistent in their damage output. And, well, with set monster roles, you know battles will be more engaging, because the enemies will work together better. Put at least a little thought into AI patterns, and you'll have strong enemy groups.
Limit Archetypal Structures
Your game is going to get dull if every enemy group has the tank/healer/striker/nuker mix. Just because it's the "ideal" group doesn't mean it's entertaining every time! Throw the player for a loop on who to kill first - three brutes and two 1/2-point debuffers mean you have to balance mitigating damage taken with stopping the foes from making you vulnerable. Sure, have that archetypal setup once or twice in an area's group list, but vary it up from there.
Make the player think about who they have to kill first, and you're one step closer to a fun battle system, no matter how traditional or bizarre it is.
A battle system that doesn't have interesting monster groups is weak, no matter how FMV-like the animations are. A cool enemy can be worthless if you engage it by its lonesome, dying too quickly. Having eight of the same foe is typically dull, even if it is more challenging. Simple balancing of enemy roles and battle size can make the most basic battle system more fun. So, how do you make monster parties engaging?
(A lot of this is based on D&D 4e, by the way.)
What I like to do is follow a few rules:
-Enemy party size is equal to hero party size, plus or minus one
-Monsters have a designated role they try to fulfill
-Monster groups are not all archetypal structures
Enemy Party Size
Enemy parties get to "purchase" units with a number of points equal to the size of the hero party at that point in the game, plus or minus one. The normal distribution for an area, assuming a party size of four, would be three three-monster parties, three five-monster parties, and five four-monster parties. This inherently means that some are easier than others, and some are a little more difficult.
Having a number of enemies roughly equal to the amount of heroes means that area-of-effect skills tend to be useful, even with low damage; that you can poison one enemy and let it sit while you pick off others; that you have to choose who to pick off first. More on that last point later.
About points: have enemies worth different amount of points. Here's an example set of monsters for a lizardmen cavern.
Angry Rhino - 2 points
Microdragon - 2 points
Lizard Tamer - 1 point
Lizard Soldier - 1 point
Lizard Assassin - 1 point
Wyrmling - 1/2 point
Two wyrmlings are as powerful as a lizard assassin. Two lizard tamers are as powerful as an angry rhino. This helps diversify enemy parties and label certain enemies as "elite" - they're tougher to take down, but by costing the same as two normal enemies, the party won't necessarily be in too much hot water. It's simply a different challenge.
Monster Roles
So, your heroes have a defender, a rogue, a mage and a healer. Why do enemies have to all be "I have attack and one elemental spell," then? Let's work on that with a very basic list of enemy roles:
Tank - Soaks up damage with higher HP and defenses (either armor or evasion). Tries to cover allies or increase their defenses/resistances
Striker - Deals consistent damage, physical or magical. It's not a lot at once, but usually accurate. Also tends to have decent evasion and critical rates, to be more rogue-esque
Brute - Deals lots of physical damage, usually to a single target. Can sometimes charge up a powerful move
Nuker - Deals lots of magical damage, to a single target or an area; might be interesting to have your brutes focus on high single-target damage and your nukers on spreading out decent (but not killer) damage
Healer - Heals allies' HP, and cures ailments - put a blind-curing foe with a brute...?
Buffer - Raises the party's capabilities, raising the nuker's damage, the tank's evasion, the brute's accuracy, etc.
Debuffer - Hinders the party, slowing them, confusing them, etc.
By applying one or two of these roles to a foe, you make each enemy more memorable and interesting. You also have to decide who to pick off first - the one curing silence on its nuker allies, or the nukers themselves? What about the lone tank that is quietly raising its defense, metapod-style?
Let's apply roles to the previous lizardmen enemy set:
Angry Rhino - 2p; brute
Microdragon - 2p; nuker/tank
Lizard Tamer - 1p; healer/buffer
Lizard Soldier - 1p; tank
Lizard Assassin - 1p; striker/debuffer
Wyrmling - 1/2p; striker
It's a set low on brutes and nukers, so there's not a lot of concentrated damage, but the strikers working with the tanks will being the groupings will tend to stay alive while being consistent in their damage output. And, well, with set monster roles, you know battles will be more engaging, because the enemies will work together better. Put at least a little thought into AI patterns, and you'll have strong enemy groups.
Limit Archetypal Structures
Your game is going to get dull if every enemy group has the tank/healer/striker/nuker mix. Just because it's the "ideal" group doesn't mean it's entertaining every time! Throw the player for a loop on who to kill first - three brutes and two 1/2-point debuffers mean you have to balance mitigating damage taken with stopping the foes from making you vulnerable. Sure, have that archetypal setup once or twice in an area's group list, but vary it up from there.
***
Make the player think about who they have to kill first, and you're one step closer to a fun battle system, no matter how traditional or bizarre it is.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
Statuses
Posts
