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 ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Is RNG good or bad?
I prefer if RNG is something that I can respond to rather than something that determines how successful my choices are. The most obvious example is the enemy lineup, depending on which enemy group I encounter, I can change my tactics accordingly provided the game actually encourages you to do so. However, if my sleep spell sometimes put four enemies to sleep, sometimes none at all, chance is the only adjustment I do is to not use the sleep spell period.
The RNG should also only be able to cause a loss if you screw up. Taking Final Fantasy X as an example, I'm fine with the idea that you have a 75% chance of missing if you attack a flyer with Auron, but I'm not amused when I get ambushed and screwed over before my characters get even a single command.
The RNG should also only be able to cause a loss if you screw up. Taking Final Fantasy X as an example, I'm fine with the idea that you have a 75% chance of missing if you attack a flyer with Auron, but I'm not amused when I get ambushed and screwed over before my characters get even a single command.
Not saving giving a better reward?
The mere existence of an easy way to solve a problem can kill the satisfaction of solving the problem in a hard way. This is a psychological effect which strength varies from individual to individual.
The attitude towards how much responsibility that lies on the designer also varies from individual to individual. I remember one discussion about Final Fantasy VIII where people claimed the game was too easy and got the response that they should junction weaker spells to their stats. That argument was not accepted by anyone who didn't already do that. They considered it the job of the designers to make sure the game is balanced, not that of the players. Some go a step further and think that the game designers should should cap the level that players can grind to based on how far they progressed trough the story. Other are perfectly OK with the game designers leaving the balance entirely in the hands of the player.
I think that when you design a game, you should ask yourself which kind of players you want to appeal to. Then make your choices accordingly. Don't try to find the one "right" way to do it, there is no such thing.
That said, one thing is a constant regardless of who you want to appeal to, the easier it is for a player to screw itself over, the more likely it is this will happen. Grinding to level 50 in the first dungeon usually takes forever, so players who want a challenge are unlikely to do that. However, if you can obtain an overpowered weapon with only 10 minutes work, it's more likely that someone who wants challenge nevertheless takes that option, thereby making the game less fun for itself.
The attitude towards how much responsibility that lies on the designer also varies from individual to individual. I remember one discussion about Final Fantasy VIII where people claimed the game was too easy and got the response that they should junction weaker spells to their stats. That argument was not accepted by anyone who didn't already do that. They considered it the job of the designers to make sure the game is balanced, not that of the players. Some go a step further and think that the game designers should should cap the level that players can grind to based on how far they progressed trough the story. Other are perfectly OK with the game designers leaving the balance entirely in the hands of the player.
I think that when you design a game, you should ask yourself which kind of players you want to appeal to. Then make your choices accordingly. Don't try to find the one "right" way to do it, there is no such thing.
That said, one thing is a constant regardless of who you want to appeal to, the easier it is for a player to screw itself over, the more likely it is this will happen. Grinding to level 50 in the first dungeon usually takes forever, so players who want a challenge are unlikely to do that. However, if you can obtain an overpowered weapon with only 10 minutes work, it's more likely that someone who wants challenge nevertheless takes that option, thereby making the game less fun for itself.
Learning to Use Damage Formulas in VX Ace
author=unity
That is amazing! May I use this formula or something similar?
Of course. I think I can provide you with all necessary offensive formulas now.
Basic attack: 4 * a.atk ** 2 / (a.atk + b.def)
For physical skills, use the same formula, but change the 4 to something else.
Second tier magic: 4 * a.mat **2 / (a.mat + b.mdf)
If the spells are to weak, change the 4 to a higher number.
The first tier magic is the most complicated.
Try this: (40 + 2 * a.mat) * (20 + a.mat) / (20 + a.mat + 2 * b.mdf)
If the damage is to low or high, change the numbers in bold. The first number should always be twice as high as the other two.
Healing spells aren't resisted, so they don't need a fancy formula. They should be similar to the default, only you change the numbers a bit.
Learning to Use Damage Formulas in VX Ace
author=unity
I must admit that the formula goes over my head and I'm not sure what it does, aside from relying on something besides defense to reduce damage, which is a very good idea from what I'm wanting. Other than that, I'm a bit clueless ^^;;
If the target has the same defense as the attacker has attack, damage is reduced by half, meaning the target lives twice as long as it would with no defense at all. If the defender has twice as much defense as the attacker has attack, damage is cut to a third meaning the target lives thrice as long. With three times the defense, the target lives four times as long and so on. This holds true for values in-between as well. With 1,3 times the defense, the target lives 2,3 times as long.
Basically, you never become invincible. This formula tolerates more variance in attack and defense stats than a straight subtractive system does.
Making physical skills is easy with this system, replace the 4 in 4 * a.atk ** 2 / (a.atk + b.def) with a higher number for higher damage. Spells is more complicated, if you use this formula, I will probably have to walk you trough it.
author=unity
1)The game's going to only be around 4-6 hours, so I was thinking of a 2-tier system for healing and offensive magic. Basically: Low-level element spell, version of the spell that hits all enemies, then later in the game they get the High-level version that scales better, and then a high-level version that hits all targets.
With only two tiers, it's far easier. We only need to know starting stats.
Learning to Use Damage Formulas in VX Ace
author=unity
Ah, I see. Is there an easy way to make each attack do at least one damage?
Sure. Locate following in Game_Battler:
def make_damage_value(user, item)
value = item.damage.eval(user, self, $game_variables)
value *= item_element_rate(user, item)
value *= pdr if item.physical?
value *= mdr if item.magical?
value *= rec if item.damage.recover?
value = apply_critical(value) if @result.critical
value = apply_variance(value, item.damage.variance)
value = apply_guard(value)
@result.make_damage(value.to_i, item)
end
After the line value = apply_guard(value) add following:
value = [value, 1].max
I think that's rather pointless though, once characters have a three digit HP value, dealing 1 point of damage is meaningless. Rather, I change the formula entirely so defense no longer reduces damage to zero. For example, I change following:
a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2
to
4 * a.atk ** 2 / (a.atk + b.def)
This formula is more complicated, but it's however more balanced. You can have a greater variance in character and enemy attack and defense values without breaking things. The problem is that if you don't understand what the formula does, it's hard to figure out how other skills and spells should look like.
author=unity
Ah, so putting magic and physical skills on the same playing field isn't necessarily the best way to do things. Maybe just the spells of the final tier should have a formula that scales that much.
That's actually a good idea. Note that this will likely result in formulas where the final tier spell can theoretically deal less damage than the semi final tier if the caster has a very low mat.
Anyway, I think that first should you decide following:
1) How will spells progress? Will you get replacement spells like Fire, Fira and Firaga or will spells remain useful trough the whole game?
2) The same question, but with physical skills.
3) How are costs handled? As a rule of thumb, use MP cost for offensive skills that become outdated and TP cost for skills that remain useful.
4) How does stats progress? What values does characters start and end with?
Learning to Use Damage Formulas in VX Ace
The problem with damage formulas is that it's hard to even give basic advices. Let's take a very basic formula for the default attack as an example.
a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2
Now, we want to make a physical skill that's stronger than the basic attack. There are different ways to go about it, including, but certainly not limited to, following:
1) a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2 + 50
2) a.atk * 5 - b.def * 2
3) (a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2) * 4 / 3
So, which one should you use? Unfortunately, the answer depends one several factors, like how payment for using the skill is handled, how long the skill is supposed to be useful and overall how the game is planned. The first option is good if the player is meant to eventually get stronger skills the replaces earlier skills while the other options are better if the skill is supposed to remain useful trough the whole game. 2) and 3) are similar, but has (usually) subtle differences in how they interact with enemy defense.
Even this basic step can be complicated. However, I have one advice if you're not good at this; keep it simple.
a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2
Now, we want to make a physical skill that's stronger than the basic attack. There are different ways to go about it, including, but certainly not limited to, following:
1) a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2 + 50
2) a.atk * 5 - b.def * 2
3) (a.atk * 4 - b.def * 2) * 4 / 3
So, which one should you use? Unfortunately, the answer depends one several factors, like how payment for using the skill is handled, how long the skill is supposed to be useful and overall how the game is planned. The first option is good if the player is meant to eventually get stronger skills the replaces earlier skills while the other options are better if the skill is supposed to remain useful trough the whole game. 2) and 3) are similar, but has (usually) subtle differences in how they interact with enemy defense.
Even this basic step can be complicated. However, I have one advice if you're not good at this; keep it simple.
Learning to Use Damage Formulas in VX Ace
author=unity
So, if I simply substitute a formula like the attack skills but use it for the magic skills instead, like maybe a.mat *5 - b.mdf *2, would that put magical skills on the same playing-field as physical skills?
Yes, it would do exactly that.
Personally, I always ask myself what I want the formula to accomplish and then design one accordingly. For example, sometimes I want defense to be able to reduce the damage to zero and sometimes I don't.
Thoughts on Fast Travel.
Is it a fade out, fade in, kind of job? If that's the case, they should not give enough money to make them worth the time past the start. If not, then the time it takes to complete them will be a limiting factor.
If you don't want the player to farm money, why even have repeatable jobs? I think it's the repeatable jobs that should go rather than fast travel.
If you don't want the player to farm money, why even have repeatable jobs? I think it's the repeatable jobs that should go rather than fast travel.
Are You An “Item Hoarder?”
I used to hoard items and not use them until the last boss, but I eventually stopped doing it. I've learned that great items are usually better early game, late game I tend to have more options anyway. For example, a Megalixir type item is no longer impressive when you have a good multi-target healing magic and equipment that reduces MP cost by half.
[Poll] What do you think about multiple endings?
A game over is practically a bad ending, the bad guy wins, world is destroyed and so on. Most players would feel cheated if they got a game over for other reasons than failing, say you get to choose between two doors and picking the wrong one gets you a game over. So, it makes sense if people also feel cheated if they get a bad ending for other reasons than failing.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
