What Do ya think?*Turn Based or Real Time
Author
ok im making an RPG if you didnt already know and im debating about wether i should have certin monsters restricted to certin maps or if i should have all monsters on the all the non-town maps and then just have the monster have a base lvl witch is then incremented by the map and the lvl of the player. The first does seem to make it like your discorvering new monsters but the second will serve as an inexaustable set of challenges for the very strong player also the monsters would not be able to use ALL their abilitys unless the amount that their lvl was incremented was high enough im not quite sure what to do either one is possible so i just want some input from the people
thanks[smile]
[Edited by - raptorstrike on December 14, 2004 8:30:12 PM]
I dislike the 2nd approach as it was used in FFVIII. It totally defeats the purpose of levelling up.
I agree. I played an RPG for dreamcast(can't remember the name) that you had floors and each floor had the same enemies, but they were a level higher each floor. All the bosses' levels, including the final boss, were determined by your level. So what was the point of leveling up. You were forced to level up anyway because the levels had 10 or more floors(randomly made) and on the tenth floor, the monsters were 10 levels higher than on the first floor, so to proceed you had to level up. Kind of a waste of time when even the bosses don't have their own level. When I played Final Fantasy and wasn't strong enough to beat a boss, I would level up until I could beat the enemies in the area without having to go to the inn or using items to restore myself. Then I would be strong enough to beat the boss. I hate wasting time leveling up only to find the boss has also leveled up too.
I don't like the second approach either. Part of the fun of RPGs is leveling your character so you become the coolest, most powerful dude on the block. You feel good when you slaughter the monsters that nearly killed you just a few levels before. On the other hand, if the monsters level with you, you have very little reinforcement that your characters are actually stronger. The only difference that higher levels will make is that BOTH sides deal more damage and take more damage, but the battles progress mostly the same. So the player has little reason to believe he/she is any stronger now than before. Although the special abilities gained will affect the battle some, it really isn't enough in my opinion.
I think the levels didn't go up completely linear. As you levelled up you got say 50% stronger while a monster only 30%.
This ends up as having not total wussy monsters but you'd still be able to beat them much faster/easier.
This ends up as having not total wussy monsters but you'd still be able to beat them much faster/easier.
Author
no it wouldnt be completely linear as i explained the monster lvl will be set (so some monsters will always be stronger then others) then increased based on a FIXED map modifyer (maps later in the game will have harder monsters) and
Monster_Lvl+=Map_Lvls;
Monster_Lvl+=(5/8)(Player1_Lvl+Player2_Lvl+Player3_lvl)/3);
at that rate you when your player set up looked like this
99,105,97
you monster would be at around 98 or 70 depending on the map also this way experience isnt near impossible to gain at higher lvls and i do plan on going past 100 (i hate retrictions that have been put on games so i try to remove them from mine) this way people can make the margin between the monster and them as big as they like they will just have to work harder.
i am thinking about caping the level because seeing as the margin gets bigger as time gose by it would become too easy to widen that gap between your opponent (the fall off is % based) (a curve)
Monster_Lvl+=Map_Lvls;
Monster_Lvl+=(5/8)(Player1_Lvl+Player2_Lvl+Player3_lvl)/3);
at that rate you when your player set up looked like this
99,105,97
you monster would be at around 98 or 70 depending on the map also this way experience isnt near impossible to gain at higher lvls and i do plan on going past 100 (i hate retrictions that have been put on games so i try to remove them from mine) this way people can make the margin between the monster and them as big as they like they will just have to work harder.
i am thinking about caping the level because seeing as the margin gets bigger as time gose by it would become too easy to widen that gap between your opponent (the fall off is % based) (a curve)
IMHO, I think the first solution is the best. I think every map/area should have its own unique monsters with their own attributes [Think of FF7]. If you are in lets say in some sort of snow region, the monsters should be different from monsters in lets say a forrest setting. But as you dive deeper into each region, the monsters should be getting stronger. What you could do, like Diablo 2 kind of did, was make a Unique monster everynow and them that was stronger than the typical monsters in an area. This would accompish the "inexaustable set of challenges " because you can make special areas where the randomly generated monsters are strong, but they give you good rewards. I like that approach compared to making the monsters level in all areas as you do - unless you wanted to add a part of your game that in some areas, the monsters naturally evolve at greater rates or something is making them evolve. As for the process of making the mosnter levels, I think you should have a little margin of level error. Lets say in the first area, a player is level 15, monster levels could be generated with a +- 3 level difference. That way you can encounter mosnters ou can beat, but you will also encoutner mosnters stronger than you, even if it is the same breed. THis is realistic because not all monsters sohuld be one level, have so much hp etc... Just a few ideas. Good luck!
Author
yeah i think ill go to with the first solution i just thought that the above posts were valid counter points any way i was planning on doing a -+ rand()%3 or 4 for all the monsters.
thanks alot[smile]
thanks alot[smile]
Author
since this thread is still alive rather then a new thread ill just bring this one back and add a *Turn Based V turn based*
ok so what do people like it seems like the market is more focased on the real time battle but what are people (those who sit on their computer playing games made by average game programers) going to be looking for? In fact real time will be easyer i think then turn based so i have no problem using it i just thought id ask you guys since i have this thread up for that reason
ok so what do people like it seems like the market is more focased on the real time battle but what are people (those who sit on their computer playing games made by average game programers) going to be looking for? In fact real time will be easyer i think then turn based so i have no problem using it i just thought id ask you guys since i have this thread up for that reason
I've got turn-based combat for my game, but that's only because I want to write a PDA version later, and TBH real-time combat doesn't work well when you're trying to get off the train and get to your meeting.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
