Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
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 ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Proper Enemy Design II of V
comment=34823
Have you ever heard of stall tactics? A wall that sets up residual damage, such as poison, damage fields, and thorns (return a % of damage taken to the attacker, think Diablo II) can be just as threatening as an enemy that mounts real offense - which would befit their higher defenses well. This isn't quite overlapping an Enfeebler, since they focus on more severe status.
That's not to say that you can't blend or ignore any of these as you see fit.
That could work if the poison damage is high enough. That would be one of the available tricks to make the enemy a viable threat. Thorns type of damage could also work if it's combined with something else.
We're working on some thieves right now, the stripe that actually jack your stuff. What role do you think would work best for them? The theory would be that they can steal one of your healing or combat items and use it against you. Might that be a Utility Attacker, a Multi-Nuker or possibly an Enfeebler?
I would suggest you first decide how you want the player to deal with the thieves. Other than the obvious "kill it ASAP", the player could also make sure there's never anyone for the thief to heal if he steals a potion. The player pays attention to when the thief acts and choose attacks so that one monster will be killed, but none will be left wounded, between the thieves turns.
Once you have decided what option you want the player to have when dealing with the thief, you can decide what other skills the thief should have. However, it strikes me that what role it has will largely depend on what item it steals. If it steals a potion, it becomes a healer. If it steals an offensive item, it becomes a nuker.
Proper Enemy Design II of V
The all around wall will usually not contribute to anything else than wasting time. The player will just kill off every other enemy and take care of it last. Without good offensive capabilities it doesn't pose a significant threat. The only reason defensive characters work for the player is because the AI is usually not smart when it comes to targeting will will happily hit the plate clad warrior instead of the robe wearing mage.
There are tricks to make defensive enemies meaningful, but by default they are just a waste of time.
There are tricks to make defensive enemies meaningful, but by default they are just a waste of time.
RPG with no repeatable battles
post=145071
I see what Chaos is getting at. I'm near the end of Persona 3 and I would rather not have every single battle to be BRAND NEW because every time I get to a new floor section it's very easy for me to have trouble. Through repetition I can eventually take out enemy groups in 1 turn because I know their weaknesses, taught myself a good persona switch setup, etc.
Not every encounter has to be brand new to be a bit different. If you in one encounter face three zombies and one skeleton and in the next encounter face one zombie and three skeletons, you can use the knowledge gained from the first encounter when fighting the second one. This works even if the game is designed in such a way that there's a meaningful difference between the two encounters.
Have you played Contra? If not, what I'm saying should work for a Mario game, a Megaman game and a lot of other games. Anyway, in Contra you will often encounter the same set of enemies, say one turret and three of the constantly respawning soldiers. However, even if you encounter the same set of enemies the fights are rarely the same. What terrain there is and from what direction the soldiers comes from will change how you need to move to deal with the situation. However, if you encounter the same set of enemies in an RPG it's usually the same fight. Rarely is the difference more meaningful than having to heal a different character because the enemies choose to target a different character if even that. Usually I can just repeat the exact same set of commands.
I think that RPGs should let you apply the knowledge gained from one battle and enjoy a great advantage from it in other battles. Even so, I don't see the need for battles to be the exact same.
.
post=144674
Essentially FFT, except most classes can only be accessed by certain races.
Then I assumed right.
You're thinking a little further ahead than I was. lol But you are right, that would be a problem...
Well, I think most players would take on story dungeons when they feel ready. I don't think there's a big risk the majority will overlevel like crazy. However, there is a danger that they decide "let's hit one more non-plot dungeon first to be on the safe side" and end up a little over-leveled and over-equipped anyway.
The .hack series display the level of enemies when you enter a stage so it would be relatively easy for the player to estimate whether or not they are ready to proceed. If you were to give story dungeons better treasures than other dungeons at equal level, the player would feel more encouraged to go trough them while those treasures are still useful. You can go a long way by simple making it more rewarding to hit story dungeons as soon as one is ready instead of waiting until the characters are overpowered. Of course, you still don't have an actual brake, just an encouragement. Make out of that as you will.
.
I haven't played FFTA although I have played FFT. Assuming FFTA has a class system that's even close to as flexible that of FFT, I do think both it and the free roaming nature of .hack//Infection may compliment each other.
One effect of the free roaming nature is that the player can pick a stage with as easy or hard opponents as he wants. With a flexible class system, there will be a large difference in power between two players even if they are at similar levels. The player with a more powerful class combination can now simple pick a harder stage if he wants to maintain challenge. Picking dungeons with higher level enemies will also level that player up faster, so someone who has already beaten the game once will be able to go trough it much faster the second time which I think is a good thing.
The side effect is that you have no control over how powerful the player will be at a certain point of the game. Most RPGs allows you to build your characters so strong you will just wreck any opposition. They do nevertheless have brakes such as increasing exp requirements and not making all equipment available at once. No such brakes will exist in your game. It's entirely up to the player. The question is, do you consider that a problem?
One effect of the free roaming nature is that the player can pick a stage with as easy or hard opponents as he wants. With a flexible class system, there will be a large difference in power between two players even if they are at similar levels. The player with a more powerful class combination can now simple pick a harder stage if he wants to maintain challenge. Picking dungeons with higher level enemies will also level that player up faster, so someone who has already beaten the game once will be able to go trough it much faster the second time which I think is a good thing.
The side effect is that you have no control over how powerful the player will be at a certain point of the game. Most RPGs allows you to build your characters so strong you will just wreck any opposition. They do nevertheless have brakes such as increasing exp requirements and not making all equipment available at once. No such brakes will exist in your game. It's entirely up to the player. The question is, do you consider that a problem?
Why can't I just poison him a little bit!?
post=144628
Once again, it all depends on how you design the game. What if your enemies DON'T die in one or two hits? What if you encounter a foe with tons of defense or HP? Wouldn't it be worth it to poison that guy while you take down its less-hardy companions? It's a balancing act that goes far beyond the status problems themselves!
Also, the distinction between paralysis stopping attacks and Blind making them miss would be it still costs the baddie MP to miss (assuming the game uses MP).
We can argue about this all day, but there are creative ways of making status problems useful that a game designer should try to recognize! And by no means should status problems always be the answer, either!
Of course it depends on how you design the game, anything depends on how you design the game.
Let's examine your foe with tons of HP and defense. Against that foe, poison does indeed sound viable. In fact, it sounds like poison is now a way to obvious solution. Having problems that have one obvious solution aren't meaningful either. Of course, you could give the player other good ways to deal with that foe. But if you do that, maybe the other means end up being plain better solutions and poison is no longer a good solution.
In order for, not only status effects, but any skill period, to be meaningful, there has to be situations where it's neither obvious that you should use the skill nor obvious that you shouldn't. You need to get the skill somewhere between. I do not think that creativity alone will accomplish that, it's going to take balancing. I have seen examples where people have been really creative, but rendered it obsolete by not balancing it correctly. If you have played wild Arms 3, i give you the sandcraft as an example where "Fire all ammo at once" obsoletes almost every other option.
Do you prefer "strong" or "sissy" protagonists?
I've recently played Tears of Reality whose main character definitely can be classified as "sissy" and it worked well. However, I think a "sissy" protagonist is more likely to annoy the player if the writer isn't up to the task.
As a rule, a strong protagonist has the ability to get things done. There's a danger with the "sissy" protagonist that he trough his indecisiveness manages to waste time. Sure, the personal problems that character has is supposed to be part of the story and not a waste of time, but the player may not view it that way. Still, an inspired "sissy" protagonist will be better than an uninspired strong protagonist.
As a rule, a strong protagonist has the ability to get things done. There's a danger with the "sissy" protagonist that he trough his indecisiveness manages to waste time. Sure, the personal problems that character has is supposed to be part of the story and not a waste of time, but the player may not view it that way. Still, an inspired "sissy" protagonist will be better than an uninspired strong protagonist.
Been there, done that
post=144495
While I agree that making the player feel badass is an excellent way of rewarding them, I dislike it when they can become so powerful that nothing can stop them. They should feel like they can beat the snot out of a demon lord, but it should still be challenging for them to do so, too! If that makes any sense.
I'd say it does. A demon lord who is easy to defeat can make the player feel less badass or more like the demon lord is just a giant wuss. Getting the players to react and feel as you want them to is not easy.
Why can't I just poison him a little bit!?
True, but I don't think that really changes my theory. If a status effect for one or another reason has a 50% chance of being useful, the player will not use it if he instead can kill the same foe in two hits, even if there are multiple enemies. As for poison, you can still count the number of turns the poisoned enemy will survive. Let's say you poison an enemy and then kill that one last. If that means the enemy gets to survive for three turns, it will take 30% of it's Max HP in damage with a 10% per turn setting. If the character who inflicted poison could have done that amount of damage with a direct attack, there's no reason to use poison instead.
Also, the idea of focusing on one foe and statusing the others often isn't as good strategy in practice as on paper. If you encounter X number of foes and they are threatening, but manageable with a good strategy, X-1 number of foes are usually no longer a threat. As soon as you kill just one enemy the battle will get much less threatening. There are exceptions like if the enemies at the same turn managed to down a character, but usually one kill is enough to make battles much less threatening.
Of course, there are solution to the problems. Still, the game creator has to actually make those solutions. This only happens if said game creator identifies the problems to begin with.
BTW, I prefer to stick with Blind only affecting physical attacks. That way I have Blind for physical enemies, Silence for spell casters and Sleep and Paralyze for both, the latter two which will have their own disadvantages. This creates a distinction between the different status effects. If Blind were to affect all kinds of attacks, it would become very similar to Paralyze who also works against all attacks. I see no difference between making attacks fail and making them not happen in the first place. Rather I make sure there are enemies who relies solely on physical attacks or at least prefers physical attacks.
Also, the idea of focusing on one foe and statusing the others often isn't as good strategy in practice as on paper. If you encounter X number of foes and they are threatening, but manageable with a good strategy, X-1 number of foes are usually no longer a threat. As soon as you kill just one enemy the battle will get much less threatening. There are exceptions like if the enemies at the same turn managed to down a character, but usually one kill is enough to make battles much less threatening.
Of course, there are solution to the problems. Still, the game creator has to actually make those solutions. This only happens if said game creator identifies the problems to begin with.
BTW, I prefer to stick with Blind only affecting physical attacks. That way I have Blind for physical enemies, Silence for spell casters and Sleep and Paralyze for both, the latter two which will have their own disadvantages. This creates a distinction between the different status effects. If Blind were to affect all kinds of attacks, it would become very similar to Paralyze who also works against all attacks. I see no difference between making attacks fail and making them not happen in the first place. Rather I make sure there are enemies who relies solely on physical attacks or at least prefers physical attacks.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
