JABBO'S PROFILE

Okay, this is something that's plagued me for awhile now, but HP and Defense are essentially the same stat. Yes, there are plenty of subtle differences, but when it comes right down to it, gaining a point in HP and gaining a point in Def serve the exact same purpose: you live longer before you die.

Now, okay, you might say something like "What about a low HP, high Def monster?" Well, how is it any different from a high HP, low Def monster? It still takes just as long to kill, and what its actual health number is doesn't matter. You might also say that HP is for both physical and magical resistance, and Def is only physical. But that's just complicating the issue. Because you're going to have some sort of magic resistance stat, too, and then why give a few points in HP rather than just one point in Def and Res? Or you might say that low HP, high Def benefits more from heal spells, but that's a really weak argument.

Quite frankly, what it comes down to is that HP is the weaker stat, and it's much better to have high Def/Res and low HP than it is to have high HP and low Def/Res. All this depends on balance, of course (it would be really easy to make HP worth more than Def/Res, just edit the formulas).

The standard solution is to simply make HP AND Def/Res increase every level and be done with it. Your tanks get high HP and high Def, your mages get low HP and low Def, and you'll have like a berserker with high HP and low Def (and honestly that just equates to medium HP, medium Def). So why bother with HP at all?

I can only come up with a few reasons:

One, in collection-based games where leveling up isn't as important as finding cool stuff, HP and Def can have different methods of going up, which adds a cool feeling to the game and gives you more to collect. Like you collect HP stones to get HP and get Def when you level up, or get HP on levels but have to find new armor for Def.

Two, Fire Emblem. FE has the lovely weapon triangle which is actually pretty deeply tied to stats. Swords are weak, fast, and high critical, which works perfectly against the high HP, low Def axes; they can deal a lot of damage since they don't have to deal with enemy Def (and critical x3 damage is very effective). Whereas axes are high attack power, low hit rate, which works great against the defensive spear units, since their attack power can overcome the high defense and their low hit rates don't matter because the spears are just that slow. And then spears are awesome against swords because swords can't break their defense, and swords don't have enough HP to deal with getting hit by a spear. The point here is that axes get HP and spears get Def, and because of the Att - Def damage system, they work fundamentally differently.

Three, Att - Def damage systems. This ties into the above, but if you think of a game like Paper Mario, a point in Def is pretty much an entirely different animal from a point in HP. But in Paper Mario, you never actually leveled up Defense directly, which I guess goes back to the first point.


I've toyed with the idea of just making HP constant throughout the game (Max HP = 100), and only using a Def stat. Is there any good reason not to do this?

And another point, when speed's primary purpose is to determine how often you can attack, how is it any different from Att or Mag? I mean, yeah, having them both in good balance will equate to maximum damage, but why should a game designer force the player to work with that? When they want to deal more damage, they're going to put points in whatever they think will help them do that best. Why give them two options that lead to the same result? I guess this is a more intricate issue, because light, fast characters feel like they play differently from huge, clunky powerhouses. Honestly, though, it's all the same.

Just wondering if anyone else has thought about this.

Wow, this is perfect for like an "Intro to the City" shot, where it pans to various parts of the city showing it off. Very cinematic. It might be a little too eclectic for background music, but that's okay because it rocks.

I've never been able to make good Arabian-type music and I think I'll be able to get a lot of ideas out of this. Thank you!

There's no rating system, so I'm going to use something arbitrary.

I really like the dark, mobster vibe so... 63 out of 71

Man I love stuff like this. It's a lot better than having to watch a speedrun to find out what happens in a game I'll never be able to play. I got far enough in to FFIV that I want to find out what happens, but not really all that far, so I'm looking forward to watching you go through the game.

Also, why is there a tent in the middle of a waterfall...?

I honestly think there needs to be some more activity in the indie MMO community. Maybe I'm just clueless because I'm turned off by bad 3d graphics (3 > 2, but people need to learn that GOOD 2D > BAD 3D) and I don't pay for anything, thus don't try any of the games out there, but I think there's a lot of MMO experimentation possible, where people try to work on alternatives to the ZOMG GRIND, someone actually addresses the issue of Player-Run Economy = FAIL, and actually making interesting storylines in a multiplayer world.

Quick elaboration, 1) grinding is actually entertaining because you're leveling up and the goal is to get higher than everyone else. But when you get to the point where you can grind for an hour and not level up (Yes, Runescape level 60-something, I'm looking at YOU) you really are just wasting your life. We need more frequent level ups, and more skill variety. 2) Player-run economies suck because crafting happens instantly. Sure there might be only one guy at level 80, but once he's there he can make a Legendary Blade of Win in about 15 seconds, and floods the market for his own profit. If the Legendary Blade of Win took 3 hours to make AND level 80, it would actually sell for what it's worth. 3) Story in an MMO? There's usually backstory to the world and such (it's usually pretty cliche too), but not much of anything else.