THE13THSECRET'S PROFILE

Obviously, perfect defense by the enemy is undesirable. However, I'd also just say that changing the probability for the enemy to properly respond is reasonable.

For example, Ralph has a Fire Shield equipped against a fire boss. Normally, boss should attack each player in a four-actor party 25% of the time. Instead of changing the time Ralph gets attacked to 0%, maybe instead 20%. If Ralph also has a Fire Helmet, maybe dock another 5% probability. After all, if the player is beefing one at the expense of others, he should be able to accept the changing odds...assuming he notices the subtlety in the first place. Plus, if the change is obvious and Ralph is always ignored because of the fire equipment, the player now has a blatant counter-strategy with equipment distribution.

Another example. Let's say the boss has stance tendencies. If the player decides to spam super attacks, the boss starts mixing in more defensive options after a while. Realizing that there seems to be an uptick in boss defense, the player switches to stat-effects to get beefy. Eventually the boss catches on and instead of more defense, mixes in more offense while the player is goofing off with silly stat-effects. Thus, we now have a battle of cat-and-mouse.

Anyway, I like this article and I wouldn't mind fighting a smarter enemy...but maybe not this smart.