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 ListsRINE'S PROFILE
Rine
1378
Close
Game designer hopeful. Have designed several tabletop RPGs, and have long wanted to start into the video game space.
My focus when designing is to create challenging experiences that force the player to make difficult choices, and change the paradigm when someone thinks of an RPG.
My focus when designing is to create challenging experiences that force the player to make difficult choices, and change the paradigm when someone thinks of an RPG.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Review Fantasy IX
Been meaning to review some games for a while now, new PC so maybe this'll get me in the mood to get back to work on my own. Already sent one off this morning!
Symmetry in Battle Systems
In most standard RPGs, that'd be the case, hell its what we do anyway even when bosses aren't even, we maul enemies with regular attacks, pull out special ones to kill the tougher random encounters, and then restock on MP before a bossfight if you see a save point.
The example might be only particular to my game, as HP is also a rare resource, in that healing items are costly (require crafting ingredients and an accessory slot), and healing spells are uber-rare. So in essence, when fighting the smaller enemies (smaller, meaning having a bit smaller stats than a final fight, not one hit=death), the player is still choosing between HP or MP when deciding to take them down fast or use normal attacks.
The problem with the team battle idea is that players will naturally pick out the easier characters to kill, focus them down, and the battle is unbalanced again. As I said earlier, if you make the enemies do that, it quickly becomes frustrating for the player, and not fun. The team aspect is a good idea, and can be balanced well to make interesting boss fights (WoW did it well with its enemy arena teams in a raid), but the best examples are still not 'even' as in the stats and numbers are on par with PCs.
The example might be only particular to my game, as HP is also a rare resource, in that healing items are costly (require crafting ingredients and an accessory slot), and healing spells are uber-rare. So in essence, when fighting the smaller enemies (smaller, meaning having a bit smaller stats than a final fight, not one hit=death), the player is still choosing between HP or MP when deciding to take them down fast or use normal attacks.
The problem with the team battle idea is that players will naturally pick out the easier characters to kill, focus them down, and the battle is unbalanced again. As I said earlier, if you make the enemies do that, it quickly becomes frustrating for the player, and not fun. The team aspect is a good idea, and can be balanced well to make interesting boss fights (WoW did it well with its enemy arena teams in a raid), but the best examples are still not 'even' as in the stats and numbers are on par with PCs.
'Hard', static stat buffs or less static, incremental, stackable stat buffs in battle?
As a note: Remember, contrary to what seems to make sense, additive increases to numbers are less effective as they stack up. There are certain mathematical principles you learn from playing clicker games, weirdly enough >.>
Make sure you are aware how your game calculates buffs before you base a design around it. Obviously, a +2 strength buff in a game where your stats start in the 10 range and go to the 100 range will quickly become obsolete, but if you rely on them stacking percentage buffs, they will improve things less and less as they go, depending on how the math works.
Example: If your base stat is 100, and you have a buff that gives you a 50% boost, you get 150, right? If you have another 50% buff, then the question becomes, is the boost applied to the new figure (multiplicative), or the base (additive)? If its applied to the new figure, you now have 225. If you apply it to the base, you have 200. So drawing that out:
Additive:
100->150->200->250->300->350->400->450
Multiplicative:
100->150->225->337->506->759->1138->1707
Both could have their uses, multiplicative obviously encourages you to keep buffing, as each stack is worth the same as applying the first. Additive would encourage players to stop buffing after a certain point, as each buff applied is progressive less effective (by the end, 400->450 is only a 12.5% boost), thus allowing the buffs to have diminishing returns naturally.
Of course, slowly wearing off also allows them to have a natural cap, though that might just encourage a player to stack different versions on one character, and use that character as full damage output (3 buffers+1 damage dealer, etc).
As a note, try also considering non-standard buffs to mix things up a bit. I've been including a lot of buffs that enable new abilities, essentially alternate 'modes' for characters, or allow for combo abilities (Use one attack to apply a buff to the character at the same time, another to use up the buff and do more damage).
Don't forget debuffs, and most importantly, if you're going to include buffs/debuffs, make sure you have ways to remove them on -both sides-. Nothing is more frustrating than a boss buffing his own strength/defense constantly, while removing yours and having nothing you can do about it. SMT:Nocturne did this very well, Dekunda and Dekaja were available to remove enemy buffs and debuffs, and buffing strategies were important for a lot of the harder fights.
Make sure you are aware how your game calculates buffs before you base a design around it. Obviously, a +2 strength buff in a game where your stats start in the 10 range and go to the 100 range will quickly become obsolete, but if you rely on them stacking percentage buffs, they will improve things less and less as they go, depending on how the math works.
Example: If your base stat is 100, and you have a buff that gives you a 50% boost, you get 150, right? If you have another 50% buff, then the question becomes, is the boost applied to the new figure (multiplicative), or the base (additive)? If its applied to the new figure, you now have 225. If you apply it to the base, you have 200. So drawing that out:
Additive:
100->150->200->250->300->350->400->450
Multiplicative:
100->150->225->337->506->759->1138->1707
Both could have their uses, multiplicative obviously encourages you to keep buffing, as each stack is worth the same as applying the first. Additive would encourage players to stop buffing after a certain point, as each buff applied is progressive less effective (by the end, 400->450 is only a 12.5% boost), thus allowing the buffs to have diminishing returns naturally.
Of course, slowly wearing off also allows them to have a natural cap, though that might just encourage a player to stack different versions on one character, and use that character as full damage output (3 buffers+1 damage dealer, etc).
As a note, try also considering non-standard buffs to mix things up a bit. I've been including a lot of buffs that enable new abilities, essentially alternate 'modes' for characters, or allow for combo abilities (Use one attack to apply a buff to the character at the same time, another to use up the buff and do more damage).
Don't forget debuffs, and most importantly, if you're going to include buffs/debuffs, make sure you have ways to remove them on -both sides-. Nothing is more frustrating than a boss buffing his own strength/defense constantly, while removing yours and having nothing you can do about it. SMT:Nocturne did this very well, Dekunda and Dekaja were available to remove enemy buffs and debuffs, and buffing strategies were important for a lot of the harder fights.
Symmetry in Battle Systems
To the original comment, I am actually attempting to make a symmetrical system in Binding Wyrds. A major factor in this so far has been keeping the numbers low, damage, hp, and defense wise. So far this has allowed me to keep characters balanced with each other (and I have a lot of them, so that's rather important), and give a baseline where monster stats aren't too far out of line with character stats. There are outliers of course, I have to adjust for the fact that characters have upgradeable gear, and monsters do not, etc.
To the Magus related discussion, I found the major factor is that when you fight a boss, it tends to be a team versus a single character. Naturally in Chrono Trigger, if you went all out immediately and he had the stats he has later, he'd go down very quickly. He also wouldn't have all his barrier-changing fun, as he doesn't have that later. Of course, he also joins the party at a much later point, so logically he should also be doing more damage.
I've been working on various ways of dealing with this, and I find if I make monsters that are functionally identical to the characters (IE, a mirror match, same abilities/stats), the game basically becomes rocket-tag. The player is naturally going to focus down one enemy, and if you have the enemy do that as well it just becomes who gets there first. So far the only implemented fight I have is against a character who, if you let her join, is extremely powerful on purpose (end of a long sidequest, major drawbacks if you let her join, evil wench, etc), and if you choose to fight her, is a serious gamble, as a lot of her abilities are powerful enough on their own to kill a character outright (my game has perma-death, so that's a serious threat to take into account). I'm still fiddling with her, as if it comes down to a fight I don't want it to be a roulette of 'Can I deal enough damage to take her down before she one/two shots a character', which so far the answer is 'yes, if you have the right team and go all out first turn'.
Of course, a way to even things out game wise and still make boss fights feel bossy, is to wear down the character's team beforehand. If you have limited restoration, a fairly powerful PC-statted character fighting a team can still feel even. He's fresh, and you've just had to work through a dozen of his slightly lower statted minions. At least, that's the theory I'm working on right now.
To the Magus related discussion, I found the major factor is that when you fight a boss, it tends to be a team versus a single character. Naturally in Chrono Trigger, if you went all out immediately and he had the stats he has later, he'd go down very quickly. He also wouldn't have all his barrier-changing fun, as he doesn't have that later. Of course, he also joins the party at a much later point, so logically he should also be doing more damage.
I've been working on various ways of dealing with this, and I find if I make monsters that are functionally identical to the characters (IE, a mirror match, same abilities/stats), the game basically becomes rocket-tag. The player is naturally going to focus down one enemy, and if you have the enemy do that as well it just becomes who gets there first. So far the only implemented fight I have is against a character who, if you let her join, is extremely powerful on purpose (end of a long sidequest, major drawbacks if you let her join, evil wench, etc), and if you choose to fight her, is a serious gamble, as a lot of her abilities are powerful enough on their own to kill a character outright (my game has perma-death, so that's a serious threat to take into account). I'm still fiddling with her, as if it comes down to a fight I don't want it to be a roulette of 'Can I deal enough damage to take her down before she one/two shots a character', which so far the answer is 'yes, if you have the right team and go all out first turn'.
Of course, a way to even things out game wise and still make boss fights feel bossy, is to wear down the character's team beforehand. If you have limited restoration, a fairly powerful PC-statted character fighting a team can still feel even. He's fresh, and you've just had to work through a dozen of his slightly lower statted minions. At least, that's the theory I'm working on right now.
[RMVX ACE] Can't load project on new PC
Hey all,
So, probably an easy fix, but I can't seem to figure it out on my end. Basically, I have a new computer now, and since I left the copy of my game on RMN unencrypted, I thought I could just download it, unpack it, and pop it up to get back to work.
However, VXACE when pointed at the directory doesn't acknowledge the game is there. I think it needs a project file, but when I try to create a new one in that directory, thinking it'll fill it back out, it just informs me there is data there and asks if I'd like to delete it.
Any ideas on how to resolve this? I'd rather not boot up the old PC and have to worry about whatever was infecting it getting into the new one.
Thanks in advance!
So, probably an easy fix, but I can't seem to figure it out on my end. Basically, I have a new computer now, and since I left the copy of my game on RMN unencrypted, I thought I could just download it, unpack it, and pop it up to get back to work.
However, VXACE when pointed at the directory doesn't acknowledge the game is there. I think it needs a project file, but when I try to create a new one in that directory, thinking it'll fill it back out, it just informs me there is data there and asks if I'd like to delete it.
Any ideas on how to resolve this? I'd rather not boot up the old PC and have to worry about whatever was infecting it getting into the new one.
Thanks in advance!
[RMVX ACE] Narcolepsy
The easiest way I can think of is to use the Yanfly Lunatic mods for status effects. Give a character the status effect permanently 'Narcolepsy', and then give the status effect a custom effect through the Lunatic mods to give a chance of applying the sleep status effect.
[Poll] A poll and discussion about random battle encounters: how they may be implemented.
What I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the concept of keeping random encounters for a time, but then having the option to trigger them after a while. I know the board has varying opinions on the Zeboyd games, but I really enjoyed how Cthulhu Saves the World handled random encounters.
In the menu, it tells you how many random encounters you have left for the dungeon/area. Once you hit zero, no more random encounters spawn. But if you want to grind some more, there is also a menu option labeled 'Fight', that just spawns a random encounter whenever you select it.
Not saying it was perfect, but for me it made the random encounters (which were necessary to level up and give a feeling of danger) less irkiness since I knew I was only a few away from being done with them (or if you were really worried about an area/using high cost skills to win, you could camp out near a save point till you exhausted them).
In the menu, it tells you how many random encounters you have left for the dungeon/area. Once you hit zero, no more random encounters spawn. But if you want to grind some more, there is also a menu option labeled 'Fight', that just spawns a random encounter whenever you select it.
Not saying it was perfect, but for me it made the random encounters (which were necessary to level up and give a feeling of danger) less irkiness since I knew I was only a few away from being done with them (or if you were really worried about an area/using high cost skills to win, you could camp out near a save point till you exhausted them).
[RMVX ACE vs Ren'Py] Making an RPG in Ren'py
Just to reassure I didn't ask out of the blue and dissapear (many work issues + PC issues lately).
I also actually did some more thinking on the subject and decided to go all Judgement of Solomon on my baby. IE, the game I have already done the work on in RPG-maker will be converted to a mission based RPG with choices for missions, upgrades and the like, but the tactical portions such as assigning characters to research/maintain other areas and the like will be excised and reserved for another game set in the same setting, that I will design with Ren'py. Hopefully best of both worlds, get to keep the varied character designs I have and save the more tactical approach for a different game.
I also actually did some more thinking on the subject and decided to go all Judgement of Solomon on my baby. IE, the game I have already done the work on in RPG-maker will be converted to a mission based RPG with choices for missions, upgrades and the like, but the tactical portions such as assigning characters to research/maintain other areas and the like will be excised and reserved for another game set in the same setting, that I will design with Ren'py. Hopefully best of both worlds, get to keep the varied character designs I have and save the more tactical approach for a different game.
[RMVX ACE vs Ren'Py] Making an RPG in Ren'py
You highly over-estimate my artistic skills. The closest I've been able to do is very very basic sprites for a GB-esque side project, and they still (personally) look like shite. I don't have much aesthetic training, so its like pulling my own teeth when doing art :P
A doll maker program would be good for stand-ins until I get proper art though, any recommendations?
A doll maker program would be good for stand-ins until I get proper art though, any recommendations?
[RMVX ACE vs Ren'Py] Making an RPG in Ren'py
So, I've done a lot of thinking and devving while my computer has been half-done, basically tinkering with things that if they got lost wouldn't be a big deal. One thing I've noticed while trying to implement the systems I want in Binding Wyrds is...well, I'm doing a lot of grinding uphill against the maker itself. I also feel like I'm doing a lot of -extra- work in order to work with the standards of the system and including things I don't want, IE more encounters/maps to make things feel more RPG-like and interactive.
So after a lot of thought, I'm considering switching my engine from RPGMaker VXACE to Ren'py. I know Ren'py is primarily a visual novel engine, but I've played a lot of games made in it that have implemented RPG elements. Given my game is more about proper distribution of characters to missions and doing the best with your roster, as opposed to epic boss/dungeon slogs, I feel its a better fit to have a design thats visual novel/story first, RPG second, as opposed to the other way around.
I have only looked at what others have done with the system, and the basics of Ren'py itself, so I could use some advice and other's experiences with it. Currently my pros/cons for it are thus:
+Can freely define various stats without much extra effort, so I can have more granular stats that aren't just combat (IE, investigation stats, diplomacy, crafting, etc).
+With the above, more stats and a more visual-novel esque design for missions would allow me to have different checks, and missions that aren't just 'kill x amount of monsters'. Instead of varying degrees of that, I could have missions where the team could be diplomatic and talk the enemies down, or sneak through without incident, with different results.
+No need to design maps. This has felt like a major burden, since my game really is the opposite of dungeon crawling/monster fighting, at least in theme.
-Have to build the RPG system from scratch.
-Can't use RTP stuff, which means stand-in black squares until I pay an artist.
Thoughts/suggestions/warnings?
So after a lot of thought, I'm considering switching my engine from RPGMaker VXACE to Ren'py. I know Ren'py is primarily a visual novel engine, but I've played a lot of games made in it that have implemented RPG elements. Given my game is more about proper distribution of characters to missions and doing the best with your roster, as opposed to epic boss/dungeon slogs, I feel its a better fit to have a design thats visual novel/story first, RPG second, as opposed to the other way around.
I have only looked at what others have done with the system, and the basics of Ren'py itself, so I could use some advice and other's experiences with it. Currently my pros/cons for it are thus:
+Can freely define various stats without much extra effort, so I can have more granular stats that aren't just combat (IE, investigation stats, diplomacy, crafting, etc).
+With the above, more stats and a more visual-novel esque design for missions would allow me to have different checks, and missions that aren't just 'kill x amount of monsters'. Instead of varying degrees of that, I could have missions where the team could be diplomatic and talk the enemies down, or sneak through without incident, with different results.
+No need to design maps. This has felt like a major burden, since my game really is the opposite of dungeon crawling/monster fighting, at least in theme.
-Have to build the RPG system from scratch.
-Can't use RTP stuff, which means stand-in black squares until I pay an artist.
Thoughts/suggestions/warnings?
Games - Tester
Games - Other
