Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Weekly Discussion on RPG Genre's flaws [The "Fight" Command]


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
36 replies to this topic

#21 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:18 AM

1. As http://store.steampo...com/app/213030/ does, let the player's mp and health regenerate after each battle, such that the player is not penalized for experimenting with spells. Of course, that does bring its own problems.


I'm actually fairly ok with MP regenerating to full at end of combat. (just like I fully support MPs regenerating progressively in combat). I think magic is a measure of exhaustion of the mind, akin to stamina, and should behave that way in games rather than as a premium resources that costs more to replenish than HPs.
However, I like using HPs as an attrition-based resource. It helps emphasize the journey over the combat. Much like stamina, you have short term energy boost (jumping) which replenishes quickly (you can quickly jump anew even though you've put your entire strength on the first jump) and you also get worn out from global exhaustion over time. HPs help to represent that, forcing you to eat/rest/drink potions along the way.



2. Make the basic attack its own special move that drains stamina. However, if it runs out, then the character can use several turns to rest and gain some stamina.


I've tried that as well. The problem, to me, is that we're tapping into a different problem when doing that.
The RPG combat system is less interactive than action-based combat system. While this gives you time to think things ahead and be more strategic, it can easily fall into a stiuation where there's not enough happening.
Introducing a stamina system, and thus, the possibility that a player may end up having to skip one of its character's turn (or turns) results in reducing the flow of actions. While this may add strategic depth (it could even affect the character's def for example) the reduction of action is a drawback to be reckoned with.
One of the most hated status effect or combat ability is when you are no longer allowed to fight (paralyse, petrification). This is intrinsically interesting from a strategic viewpoint, but extremely frustrating from the player's standpoint. Players in general tend to want to mess up because of themselves, not because of the game. That way, they always know how to improve, and its a good type of frustration that can be channeled through fun (as players improve). If the game puts a hard stop to that,

3. Make it such that attacks can made from combining normal attacks and "buffs", such that the character has to choose between attack, ice attack, fire attack, super ice attack, or whatever, such that the player never has to just choose one when he can choose both.


Is that similar to the idea mentionned earlier?

Sponsor:

#22 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:27 AM

Like
0Likes 1Likes
Like

Posted Today, 12:52 PM
Bug 1 in your logic:
Crappy menu system forces them to use the fight command.
You said it yourself, it is 300% faster to choose the fight command.
So why choose the slower method of manually inserting comamnds.

Solution A: Throw the menu into the garbage bin, and use wow's interface + realtime combat.

Solution B: You allow button mashing but it takes a longer time to finish the battle e.g 300-500% more time.

New problem:
The player will use the cookie cutter max dps combo, regardless of enemy type to minimize the battle time.
New bug: All enemies are defeated with the same way, max damage. Max damage is the fastest option,
to minimize battle time. Slows, stuns, cc, hp, armor, heals are all a waste of time
if you aren't forced to use them or instantly die.


To me this isn't a solution if it brings up a problem you're unwilling to have. There's always a way to solve that which you want to avoid, and not cause exactly what you want to avoid. I'm not saying it ends up being a flawless solution, but you get to choose what flaws you're willing to live with.
I disagree that the only logical solution to the problem is to lose the menu-based system altogether and make it like WOW. I think you're limiting yourself to what you know.



That being said, I have long believed that the first step should be reducing the number of encounters. The problem with long encounters is that (using the default fight mechanism) they get boring or frustrating, and when there's a whole lot of boring, frustrating encounters the game pretty much sucks. So, don't have so many encounters, and now you are free to make them more challenging and more strategically involved. This is exactly why tactical rpgs have always featured fewer encounters than static rpgs, the increased complexity requires more time and more time requires fewer repetitions.


I agree. I've messed with the idea of reducing encounter, making them visible, and increase sub-bosses too as they are a neat place to try something different that isn't necessarily gating the player from going further.
I look back fondly to FF5's two last-level optional bosses (Shinryuu and Omega). Both are optional, and unfortunately both don't really affect the game (not a different ending or extra level, etc) but both need the player to think. They're not necessarily extremely hard to beat once you've figured the way to go, but it requires you to think back on the game mechanics, on items that are not necessarily advertised as "this is the best DPS item!" and actually try a strategy.
This is the kind of feeling that I want to convey.
Shinryuu cannot be killed using the standard fight command (I dare you!) and they make for a good moment of pure fun. That's the moment when you realize what you need to do after trial and error. If there were more sub-boss/optional badass, and less encounters to balance things out, the game could be cooler.

Edited by Orymus3, 28 June 2012 - 11:32 AM.


#23 n00b0dy   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
-1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2012 - 02:01 PM

to rephrase the problem i mentioned :
button mashing (repeating the same max dps combo on all enemies) comes from :
1) Bug: enemies are too easy and can be killed with that strategy.
a) solution: make enemies scale with player level. thus impossible to win with "fight" command.
2) Bug:enemies in most rpg games have the same or no weakness.
a) make enemies have 1 element they are extremely weak like 250-300% extra dmg, and 3 elements they are almost immune.
Correct Example: In diablo 1 "The hell mod" 75% of the enemies are fire immune, 75% are lighting immune, 75% are magic immune.
Most enemies can be damaged by only 1 element thus forces you to switch spells.
Some enemies are totally immune to all magic so you are forced to skip them if you are a mage, (can only be beaten by physical
damage which you dont have, or wait 1 min for your golem to kill them in melee).
3) Bug: Hp is easily replentishable. Thus players choose to win the battle as fast they can with max dps combo, and recover to full in 1sec after battle.
a) make it so it takes 20-30 secs to recover to full after battle, healers cannot use their spells after battle or if they do they will have to wait for their mana pool to get restored 20-30 sec.


Shinryu cannot be defeated with fight command because he is the same level as the party (level is capped at 99).
If i was lvl 300 with 280.000 hp and 90.000 damage and no damage cap, i will be able to defeat him in 1 hit thus i wouldn't need strategy, just "fight" command.

Edited by n00b0dy, 28 June 2012 - 02:12 PM.


#24 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3438

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2012 - 03:29 PM

Watching people play games made me learn one thing, attempting to fix a game without finding out what is excellent in the game is pointless. All games are flawed. Especially very good games are. Only boring games are not flawed. The flaw is almost always connected with the biggest strength of a game and fixing it will do more harm than good...

For example in jRPGs it is all about the story. The combat is NOT supposed to be too strategic and demanding and hard, it is just a delay before next part of the story is revealed. Fixing it is not really needed for this kind of game and could even be harmful.
Of course some (probably most) people will disagree here :) But also most people do not play jRPGs, so it is natural. They don't like the basic premise of such games so they don't play such games.

To sum it up, do not attempt to fix the game for players who don't like your game in the first place (at most you can make them say the game is average or decent but you can't make them fall in love with it). Improve it only for those who already love your game.

Also, there is a saying that fits here: "If no one hates your game no one will love it either" :)

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (RELEASED!)


#25 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:58 PM

Shinryu cannot be defeated with fight command because he is the same level as the party (level is capped at 99).
If i was lvl 300 with 280.000 hp and 90.000 damage and no damage cap, i will be able to defeat him in 1 hit thus i wouldn't need strategy, just "fight" command.


That is only partly true. You are discarding the fact he deals maximum damage to the party before the party gets to act. Chances are even at level 300, with say, 300 000 HPs, you'd get a hit of 999 999 on the first round, making it impossible to beat regardless, but I do see your point.

to rephrase the problem i mentioned :
button mashing (repeating the same max dps combo on all enemies) comes from :
1) Bug: enemies are too easy and can be killed with that strategy.
a) solution: make enemies scale with player level. thus impossible to win with "fight" command.
2) Bug:enemies in most rpg games have the same or no weakness.
a) make enemies have 1 element they are extremely weak like 250-300% extra dmg, and 3 elements they are almost immune.
Correct Example: In diablo 1 "The hell mod" 75% of the enemies are fire immune, 75% are lighting immune, 75% are magic immune.
Most enemies can be damaged by only 1 element thus forces you to switch spells.
Some enemies are totally immune to all magic so you are forced to skip them if you are a mage, (can only be beaten by physical
damage which you dont have, or wait 1 min for your golem to kill them in melee).
3) Bug: Hp is easily replentishable. Thus players choose to win the battle as fast they can with max dps combo, and recover to full in 1sec after battle.
a) make it so it takes 20-30 secs to recover to full after battle, healers cannot use their spells after battle or if they do they will have to wait for their mana pool to get restored 20-30 sec.


I find this argument extremely restrictive. Like I said, you make it sound like this is a causality relationship that is factual, when I can see a number of places where I'd branch out with different alternatives and come up with a different result.

Also, there is a saying that fits here: "If no one hates your game no one will love it either"


I agree. Recently, lead developer on Diablo 3 said (with great accuracy) that a game that receives no 'hate' has failed to make actual decisions. Decisions divide, but they're made to cater to a certain crowd that will support it. The fact it displeases people from outside of your audience is irrelevant if you've managed to score with those you wanted.
While I fully agree that a game should have flaws to reflect its decisions, making the fights intentionally flawed isn't necessary. I've known sufficient volumes of RPG lovers that were turned off by the battle system of a said game to know that there is a crowd that aspires to get more depth in the battle system. It can be done, its just a matter of choosing the tradeoff.

For example, I really liked Chrono Trigger's and FF5's bossfights. I thought they were challenging, and I wish there were more of that in regular battles I'm a diehard retro RPG fan, and while I really like the stories (well, not FF5's obviously...) I'm also very interested by the gameplay as well. This goes to say that I don't believe we should dismiss the Fight issue by saying it is a necessary flaw to make a nice jRPG.

#26 spires   Members   -  Reputation: 257

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:14 AM

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

To me, bashing the “Fight” command is precisely that. It can be removed without reducing the game depth in it. The only reason it is there is like what others here have said to give players a way out if they run out of potions to use the other options. There are many ways to prevent users running out of potions and therefore get into a point of no return.

I think the issue is bigger than just the problem of always bashing the “Fight” command. The issue with those Retro/Console (J) RPG i played is that All Attack commands(Fight, Magic, skills, summon) or whatever you called it is strategical irrelevant.

In a roleplaying game, there are 3 components:
Resource Management (getting enough hp and mana pots)
Character Power(Levels, Skill power of attacks, Stats)
Tactical decision in fight( Who to choose to fight who, with which attack command)

The problem is that if Character Power is high enough, you can kill anything just by bashing the “Fight” or any attack command for that matter.

The solution is then to
a) keep the balance between Character Power and Tactical decision in fight or
b) Make them incomparables.

#27 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:15 AM

b) Make them incomparables.


Can you elaborate?

#28 tim_shea   Members   -  Reputation: 461

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2012 - 11:05 AM

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

To me, bashing the “Fight” command is precisely that. It can be removed without reducing the game depth in it. The only reason it is there is like what others here have said to give players a way out if they run out of potions to use the other options. There are many ways to prevent users running out of potions and therefore get into a point of no return.

I think the issue is bigger than just the problem of always bashing the “Fight” command. The issue with those Retro/Console (J) RPG i played is that All Attack commands(Fight, Magic, skills, summon) or whatever you called it is strategical irrelevant.

In a roleplaying game, there are 3 components:
Resource Management (getting enough hp and mana pots)
Character Power(Levels, Skill power of attacks, Stats)
Tactical decision in fight( Who to choose to fight who, with which attack command)

The problem is that if Character Power is high enough, you can kill anything just by bashing the “Fight” or any attack command for that matter.

The solution is then to
a) keep the balance between Character Power and Tactical decision in fight or
b) Make them incomparables.

I think you are one the right track with your suggestion that battles have to be more balanced to involve players (I think n00b0dy is trying to get at the same thing), but I think the most important lesson from TES: Oblivion was that game difficulty should not scale to the player. This is especially important for retro-rpgs, where a core component of the game is leveling up. In any game, though, it's going to reduce the incentive for a player to improve.
A better way, I think, would be to put more effort into designing meaningful, well balanced encounters (balanced for the intended player level) and then maybe restricting the player from over-leveling. After all, a goblin is only a goblin, it doesn't make sense for him to become super powered just because my character is super powered. But, at the same time, there is no good reason to allow me to run around slaughtering goblins indefinitely.
I see two ways to accomplish this restriction:
1) Offer only a finite number of encounters. This would be my preferred method. It better reflects reality (how many goblins live in this freaking cave?). Having fewer encounters alone has some considerable benefits, mentioned above, but also having a completely limited number of encounters will encourage players to make every one count (you could even scale experience based on how 'well' the player performed), and prevent them from breaking the carefully balanced difficulty. Although, I still believe there should be considerable latitude for players to improve within any area, possibly by making many of the encounters optional (yay it all comes together!).
2) Limit player grinding in some other, artificial way. Time limits, scaling experience sharply downward with increasing player level, etc. This is what rpgs that offer random battles have done historically, to lesser or greater extent. I think the benefit here is that the player's level can be loosely contained, while offering unlimited "play" for those that want it. Really, though, I've spent a lot of time grinding in retro-rpgs in order to max my characters out, but never because it was inherently enjoyable. The enjoyable part was having maxed out characters and getting to fight the few vicious end-game battles with them. So, unlimited "play" for me is kind of a non-argument.
So, obviously I think 1) is the way to go. If retro-rpgs are going to maintain any appeal compared to other games, the entertainment value per minute (or hour) has got to be more consistent.

#29 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 29 June 2012 - 01:27 PM

1) Offer only a finite number of encounters. This would be my preferred method. It better reflects reality (how many goblins live in this freaking cave?). Having fewer encounters alone has some considerable benefits, mentioned above, but also having a completely limited number of encounters will encourage players to make every one count (you could even scale experience based on how 'well' the player performed), and prevent them from breaking the carefully balanced difficulty. Although, I still believe there should be considerable latitude for players to improve within any area, possibly by making many of the encounters optional (yay it all comes together!).


Breath of Death VII or Chtuluu saves the World used that. They had an amount of encounters and then there were no longer any monsters in the area you were travelling with.
Unfortunately, I think we're drifting heavily from the main topic here as this would not tie directly to the overused Fight command. I'll say this though: you have to keep the grinding option opened as several fans of the genre appreciate this.

2) Limit player grinding in some other, artificial way. Time limits, scaling experience sharply downward with increasing player level, etc. This is what rpgs that offer random battles have done historically, to lesser or greater extent. I think the benefit here is that the player's level can be loosely contained, while offering unlimited "play" for those that want it. Really, though, I've spent a lot of time grinding in retro-rpgs in order to max my characters out, but never because it was inherently enjoyable. The enjoyable part was having maxed out characters and getting to fight the few vicious end-game battles with them. So, unlimited "play" for me is kind of a non-argument.


Careful there. Most methods to reduce grinding by making it less profitable result in players that seek to grind to grind even more to attain the same results.
If it generally takes 100 fights to go from level 20 to 30, and you nerf the xp gained as the player levels up so that he needs to fight 200 times instead to obtain the same results, you've just increased the amount of time many players will spend grinding (because a lot of players just want an easy ride afterall). I've always been on the fence about grinding counters as they tend to have this effect.


I'm going to rule in favor of your #1 option, but allow optional areas (dedicated grinding areas) where grinders can go.
You've cleared the dungeon of all monsters? good for you (you probably even got an XP bonus for that). You still wanna fight? Sure, go to the training fields and fight away!
That would also emphasize the use of side-quests as profitable areas to earn more xp while not necessarily revisiting areas you know in seek of combat.
I think it is a bit overkill though, and would probably rule in favor of a system that merely reduces spawning rate of monsters (or random encounters if you must) the more you fight. That way, if you're noticeably attempting to grind, you'll need to explore other locations where the spawning rate is different.

One thing I wanted to mess with was the idea of having monsters become more powerful over time (the more you fight for example) and get weaker when you attain a milestone. Instead of being based off the player's level, it would more or less emulate the position of the monsters in the world. Whenever you defeat their boss, they are dealt a critical blow and must recover, but while you're busy fighting mobs, they're taking over the world.
The idea here is that the game keeps getting harder when you are grinding, at a faster pace than the amount of levels you can earn. Ultimately, you are compelled to seek a boss and defeat it (they don't grow stronger) so that the encounters become bearable.
I'm a bit worried about this system going out of hands, but if well balanced, it could work and avoid grinding without penalyzing it. Like I said however, we're terribly off topic.
On that note, next week's topic will definitely be related to grinding as I believe we've reached a natural bridge here.

#30 n00b0dy   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2012 - 05:41 PM

I find this argument extremely restrictive. Like I said, you make it sound like this is a causality relationship that is factual, when I can see a number of places where I'd branch out with different alternatives and come up with a different result.


Can you provide an example of a situation a player would chose not the maximum dps way ???
1) A player would only replace the 1 button max dps macro only if a situational effect grants him more damage.

Thus bots are always better than human players, because they can always follow the max damage rotation, automatically following the damage buff "ifs".

Note: a monster forces you to cancel the "max dps strategy" only if it kills you. If it doesn't kill you, it is cheaper (timewise) to finish it as fast as you can and heal to full in 1sec with no resource costs after the battle finishes.

I think the most important lesson from TES: Oblivion was that game difficulty should not scale to the player

I dont agree, just because a game is bugged doesn't mean that everyone that uses this system is bugged.
Oblivion was bugged because :
1) unlimited hp monsters : regenerating trolls were unkillable and took hours to kill, and it was only a crappy trash mob, that you met every 10 steps.
2) unlimited damage monsters, 1 shot : Also there were some fiora humanoid monsters that just 1shotted you with their elemental spells.

In my game a lvl 1 monster is as hard as a lv 100000 monster when you fight em at same level. Why is that ? because i don't switch their monster type, a goblin remains the same, just higher level.

In any game, though, it's going to reduce the incentive for a player to improve

1) Physchologically no, bigger numbers = more bragging rights, perseived power level.
2) Logically yes, leveling doesn't make you stronger.

3)
If you are disatisfied with that you can apply this formula.

Lets say you are lvl 10000.

Make some enemies higher level than you, e.g10003 these won't level up again, and will just wait you to reach lvl 10003 level. If you are lower level than them they will deal +10% more dmg per level difference.
Thus the game says please kill 10-30 monsters or you wont be able to progress to next randomly generated area ( because you will get oneshotted ).
Thus you will learn the hard way that level is required to go to next area.
And gives grinding a depth. (a forced one but i don't thing players will realise it).

A better way, I think, would be to put more effort into designing meaningful, well balanced encounters (balanced for the intended player level) and then maybe restricting the player from over-leveling. After all, a goblin is only a goblin, it doesn't make sense for him to become super powered just because my character is super powered. But, at the same time, there is no good reason to allow me to run around slaughtering goblins indefinitely.


I agree with you thats what i want to acomplish but here is the faults in your method.
1) you design monster levels the static way, thus :
a) you limit player perceived power level = sucks.
b) when you increase the level cap, and create content for lv 90s it will require the manual intervention of a programmer = waste of resources.

Offer only a finite number of encounters

Seems fair, player could always run a "new game+" with the same character if they want to grind/farm xp.

prevent them from breaking the carefully balanced difficulty

I hate this, seems like Deus ex, having finete xp = removal of player freedom to grind as he wants = prison jail.

Time limits, scaling experience sharply downward with increasing player level,

I hate this, then your game will end with capped stats, capped levels, instead of being cool like disgaia.

Technically this is true even in a disgaia like game, gaining +1 str after 10 enemy kills, is almost nothing when you already have 8612312 str.

4)
Maybe i could instead just make the gui "lie" that the player leveled up, to show bigger numbers.
Lets say a player has 821 hp, 141 atk, 90 def. I would make enemies then unable to level up.
When the player levels the gui will lie saying it player has 82131 hp, 14117 attack, 9077 defense.
When you level up, the enemies in that stage will [level down], thus the player would defeat them in less hits and be actually more powerfull. It just that the "internal representation" of the game has reprojected the mathematical space.

With method 4 i could instead grant the player +1% str per 10 enemies (fake gui), thus grinding will be endless, and i will have a truly "unlimited rpg".

The idea here is that the game keeps getting harder when you are grinding, at a faster pace than the amount of levels you can earn. Ultimately, you are compelled to seek a boss and defeat it (they don't grow stronger) so that the encounters become bearable.

This would restrict player freedom, like saying "you are allowed to stay at X place for only 10 min".

Edited by n00b0dy, 30 June 2012 - 05:42 PM.


#31 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:09 PM

Can you provide an example of a situation a player would chose not the maximum dps way ???


A more beneficial sub-effect:
- Drain attack that returns HP in the equation (especially useful to avoid having to spend a turn healing)
- Stun effect, as it reduces the amount of threat the opponent can produce by further delaying their ability (having a slow effect is similar)
- Damage over time effect. This reduces DPS on hit, but increases maximum dmg dealt after a while (Poison was effective in Monster's Den and games like Diablo)
- Restore status effects when slowed by opponent for example. You just know that the damage race becomes a losing battle if your speed is halved, so you need to get rid of that status
etc.

This would restrict player freedom, like saying "you are allowed to stay at X place for only 10 min".


I agree, but perhaps the player should feel that sense of urgency. Many people complain that, while the end of the world is at hand, players spend 12 nights at the same inn before actually going into the fray and that's "ok". (My initial system also factored time passing by from spending nights, but I felt it was a bit punitive).

#32 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:10 PM

By the way, since we're drifting so far off, here is the link to the actual thread for this topic:
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/627204-weekly-discussion-week-2-rpg-genres-flaws-grinding/

#33 n00b0dy   Members   -  Reputation: 103

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:37 PM

@Orymus3

Let me rephrase:

Player's goal: max xp/min. reward/min..
how ? finish battle/dungeon as soons possible
What is the only way to achieve this currently: Max dps.

Drain attack that returns HP in the equation

Yes it usefull in harder fights that are impossible to kill with max dps macro.
However against easy enemies, it is uneeded, i would rather wait my hp to be renewed to full after fight.

Total time to finish dungeon = F( Max dps )

This would be usefull if hp was a non-renewable resource, or a slowly renewable resouce outside combat.
If i used max dps i would have to wait to recover to full. Thus the total time to finish dungeon would increase.

Total time to finish dungeon = F( Max dps, Health )

Damage over time effect

Yeah those are the spells that have the max dps so they are inside the max dps rotation.

Stun effect, as it reduces the amount of threat the opponent can produce by further delaying their ability (having a slow effect is similar)

Ok i dispel the slow, or interrupt the stun, and continue my max dps sequence.
At least now it requires user intervention to maximize the dps, and i cant use a macro for the dispel/interrupt.

Total time to finish dungeon = F( Max dps, Health, User_Brain_To_Counter_enemy )

Total Player Reward = F ( Total time to finish dungeon )

Can we add more variables to the equation, so that we punish the macro spammers?

Yes what i proposed.

Total Player Reward = F ( Total time to finish dungeon, User unique ability usage, user finds secrets, user stealths, ... )

#34 tim_shea   Members   -  Reputation: 461

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:28 PM

Like I said however, we're terribly off topic.
On that note, next week's topic will definitely be related to grinding as I believe we've reached a natural bridge here.

Ok, so, what I was trying to get at is that, I don't believe there is any simple catch-all method of reducing the reliance on the fight button without completely devaluing it, all other things being equal. My proposed solution would be to revise the number and quality of encounters, so that players never feel the need to settle into a rut; however, you make a good point about grinding, and I can definitely imagine many core rpg gamers being upset if this feature were completely removed. I think your ideas for training and/or optional areas would mitigate that, but possibly at the cost of throwing off the balance we've just worked to achieve.

Can you provide an example of a situation a player would chose not the maximum dps way ???
1) A player would only replace the 1 button max dps macro only if a situational effect grants him more damage.

Thus bots are always better than human players, because they can always follow the max damage rotation, automatically following the damage buff "ifs".

Note: a monster forces you to cancel the "max dps strategy" only if it kills you. If it doesn't kill you, it is cheaper (timewise) to finish it as fast as you can and heal to full in 1sec with no resource costs after the battle finishes.

I think here you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of the game and the nature of the player. Not everyone is going to approach even a traditional rpg in the same way. Nowhere is it implied (and it's often not the case) that mashing fight will provide the maximum damage per second, and in a turn based rpg I find it unlikely that most players even care about dps in terms of strategy, rather, when playing strategically a player will consider damage per turn and enemy damage per turn, but if the player starts thinking in terms of dps they have probably already abandoned all strategy. On the other hand, I agree that once a player settles into a one-button rut, they will probably not break out of it unless the game forces them to. But, I don't think that's because they want to play in such a single-minded manner, I think it's just because the game allows them to.

I dont agree, just because a game is bugged doesn't mean that everyone that uses this system is bugged.
Oblivion was bugged because :
1) unlimited hp monsters : regenerating trolls were unkillable and took hours to kill, and it was only a crappy trash mob, that you met every 10 steps.
2) unlimited damage monsters, 1 shot : Also there were some fiora humanoid monsters that just 1shotted you with their elemental spells.

In my game a lvl 1 monster is as hard as a lv 100000 monster when you fight em at same level. Why is that ? because i don't switch their monster type, a goblin remains the same, just higher level.

I wasn't implying (nor do I believe) that Oblivion was 'bugged', just that the incentive to improve was reduced (not removed entirely) compared to the other Elder Scrolls games. Also, the goblin thing is basically what I was getting at. If level in your game is just an arbitrary or abstract concept that will be manipulated at will to balance difficulty, fine, but if level is a number intended loosely to measure the combat prowess of a creature (as in D&D) then it just seems silly to say that the goblins gain levels to match my own. Certainly, some goblins might have higher and others lower level, and the average level might change as the game progresses, but not implicitly as my characters develop, otherwise there is no benefit to developing my characters (and no, I don't agree that people want bigger numbers just for the sake of bigger numbers, those numbers have to mean something to be interesting at all).

#35 jefferytitan   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1929

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:35 PM

Hmm, my suggestion would be multiple ways you can beat a boss with different side-effects. For example, if you go the max DPS way the boss will explode and destroy the weapon that you want to collect. Or you can knock the boss out and get past just using basic attacks, but you need special moves to actually kill the boss and get the full rewards. I do like the idea of a boss having different modes where different tactics will work better, but I'm not a fan of "this boss is 100% invincible unless you use the right attack". It's not so bad if there's a dominating strategy but the strategy changes during the fight, and you can win without the dominating strategy.

#36 Orymus3   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 6935

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:48 AM

I remember Mount&Blade used a similar system where you could just go through with whatever uber longsword you could get your hands on, but the second you wanted to become a slave driver (and hence, collect slaves) you had to find a way not to kill everyone and make prisoners. You had to pick the underpowered blunt weapons to knock'em down instead.

I've toyed with the idea of having battle tactics alter end of battle loot. For example, if you use fire, you burn whatever is consumable, etc. In the end, I felt this kinda broke creativity with a bunch of unclear rules. Having a rating system felt a bit simpler, but even so, the idea is to give the player incentive to be creative, not force them altogether, and preventing them from getting the loot is bad.

#37 mekk_pilot   Members   -  Reputation: 142

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:47 PM

I'm a believer in REMOVING THE EXPERIENCE SYSTEM ALTOGETHER. If grinding doesn't help you, fights are there solely for attrition. Basically, you build a character at the beginning of the game, and that is your character for the game. Of course you could put in spots where you could swap skills.

But that's not really about the fight command. Now, off the top of my head, if I was making something that *looked* like a JRPG (people would argue whether it actually IS one or not), I would do the above and some of these things:

1. Definitely make weaker characters/monsters less able to fight.

2. Create some kind of "triggering" system. For instance, instead of hitting "fight" the heavy hitter readies himself. When a quicker character attacks and (%-based) staggers an enemy, that triggers a huge attack. Or a character guards another, and when the guarded character is targeted the guarder takes the dmg (if it hits, quick chars could gard too) and then executes a couter attack.

3. Add attacks that have less % to hit but do more dmg, add attacks that reverse that formulae, add attacks where a player can attack at half his AP bar filled but lower % to hit, add team attacks that focus on one enemy but leave chars easier to hit/dmg'd more if targeted by other enemies.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS