Success Chances in Battles?

[Deleted]

I've been planning out the formulas for my game, and was curious what you guys are doing and what you think I should do (and DW, what the DBS defaultly does) for success chance with determining if the instigator (caster) succeeds in hitting the target. I was thinking the best way for me would be to make a percentage of (instigator's accuracy)/(target's evasion) then sort for different percent ranges and give different probabilities of succeeding based on how high or low the perecentage is. This might take a little more than a little memory (with all the sorting), but I think it'd work to re-do the DBS's system of success chances. Do you think this is a good method?

Oh, and I don't care whether you're using the DBS or not, since this really tanscends all battle systems except for action ones, so do tell what you're thinking of doing. Thanks!

Oh, and I'd make healing and good status effect moves and stuff like that be 100% always. It did annoy me in FFT when the Priest's Revive move could miss and make you lose and have to restart, so I'll skip doing this for certain types of moves.

(for example, a percentage of 100% would result in a 80% success rate while a percentage of 75% would result in a 60% success rate or something like that)

[Dungeon Warden]

Remember that RPG Maker 2 ignores values below 0, so multiply by 100 first (the default scripts multiply by 1000 to keep a significant digit).

The presets just use a base chance of success for a spell to take effect. I suspose since spells cost MP, it is not a good idea to have them miss very often, unless you make it so that the spell caser has functionally unlimited spells.

In most RPGs, the advantage of damage spells is that they always hit (unlike weapons) but they cost points and are therefore of limited use. If you are going to treat damage spells like weapons, then you need to remove their limitations as well. Otherwise, why use spells at all?

[Deleted]

Yeah, I've been pondering that too. I want all the stats to be important, so if someone had just high STR or INT and low everything else they could pretty much disregard needing the other stats (besides DEF) for anything because "Magic" (physical and magical skills) always hits no matter what. Thus, if a character has a little low agility and high INT, but another character has about equal of each, the one with equal of each isn't as bad compared to the first character. I'm thinking of just having higher Max MP's (SP) for all the characters. I think this'd also be cool if/when the party members dodge enemies' "magic." Yep, I've been planning a lot out for the BS to get things set-up pretty well, but it's tough. At least accuracy and evasion being based on 4 or 5 of the 5 stats makes it seem a little better, since high INT will help some for hitting with magic. I'm trying to make all the stats equally important so the characters end up that way, even though I do know most people will favor STR and INT most. Thank you for the interest and concern though!

(to sum this next paragraph up: the SP is basically like adding extra strength into normal attacks with most moves)

Oh, and for the moves, I have lots of abilities, Physical Skills (SP costing stronger than normal attack damaging "magic"), Magical Skills (same but magic based, and includes stronger special-like effects), and Specials (cost no SP, do something assist-like, or a small heal like "Pray" in FFX, etc.) (and Extremes, which very between being set-up like Physical and Magical Skills, and Specials, and Guardian Summoning, which are set-up like Specials). The SP cost for moves comes in proportion to their effects, but aren't very much compared to the max SP of characters (which is the same for all characters but rises as you advance in the game (along with HP)).

[NASH7777]

I suggest for fighting and stuff to have ratio the difference of your stats to determine the value or accuracy of an attack.
Ex: they have 20spd and you have 40acc.
so you have double his spd so your chance of success should be double that of your opponent. So you get a random Variable 1-100. If 1-33 then miss, if 34-100 hit. I have the math/script drafted out if you'd like.

[vespuleth]

magic that misses worked very well in tactics ogre. i say go for it. also, if you dont want it to work based upon speed, developing 'save throws' would be a very unique way of doing it. these are somewhat built into the game (i think) and would be a good way to make characters/monsters individual. as far as the math, well, thats really up to you.

[Deleted]

Thanks everyone, but what's a save throw?

Edit: I wrote up what I think are good success chances for my game...

First off, accuracy and evasion are both 11/26 AGI, 9/26 CHA, 2/26 STR, 2/26 INT, and 2/26 DEF, but these formulas aren't permanent. (if a character had the same value for all 5 stats (completely all-around) these would be the proportions)

Basically, I started with 80% success chance at 100% ratio, then proportionately went to 150% ratio with 100% success chance and 0% ratio with 0% success chance.

(left side is accuracy/evasion ratio (multipled by an extra 10 so 100% is 1000) and right side is success chance there of)

1500+ -> 100
1450-1499 -> 98
1400-1449 -> 96
1350-1399 -> 94
1300-1349 -> 92
1250-1299 -> 90
1200-1249 -> 88
1150-1199 -> 86
1100-1149 -> 84
1050-1099 -> 82
1000-1049 -> 80
975-999 -> 78
950-974 -> 76
925-949 -> 74
900-924 -> 72
875-899 -> 70
850-874 -> 68
825-849 -> 66
800-824 -> 64
775-799 -> 62
750-774 -> 60
725-749 -> 58
700-724 -> 56
675-699 -> 54
650-674 -> 52
625-649 -> 50
600-624 -> 48
575-599 -> 46
550-574 -> 44
525-549 -> 42
500-524 -> 40
475-499 -> 38
450-474 -> 36
425-449 -> 34
400-424 -> 32
375-399 -> 30
350-374 -> 28
325-349 -> 26
300-324 -> 24
275-299 -> 22
250-274 -> 20
225-249 -> 18
200-224 -> 16
175-199 -> 14
150-174 -> 12
125-149 -> 10
100-124 -> 8
75-99 -> 6
50-74 -> 4
25-49 -> 2
00-24 -> 0

(I figure on average once in one game the player might be jipped at of succeeding because of going by 2%'s instead of 1's, because 1/100 is really, really bad chances, and the player won't know these numbers any ways, and it's roughtly 4720 memory more to go from 2's to 1's)

I figure most enemies'll be roughly average agility (assumingly near 100% ratio (of course class and equipment can throw this off)), and I don't want things to miss too much, but I do want there to be decent room for improvement for having higher than 100% ratio when attacking.

So, what do you guys think about those chances and ratios?

[Dungeon Warden]

magic that misses worked very well in tactics ogre

Yes, but in Tactics Orge your magic regenerated every turn. Like I said, if you are going to make magic miss as often as weapons, then spell casers can't be limited in how may spells they can case. How powerful the spells are, yes, but the character should never completely run out of magic points.

I can't tell just by looking at numbers how well your system will work. Play testing, and lots of it, are needed to make sure all character types are balanced in their overall abilities.

[KingSpoom]

What it came down to for me and my game is what happens in a lot of games from my perspective.

Magic, for the longest time, had always been stronger than physical attacks and pretty much stronger than any physical skill. This was always counteracted by limiting it's use through MP. So, for the longest time, warriors would be stronger to begin with, but would be slowly overpowered by spell casters endgame. There were, of course, certain circumstances where warriors still shined (mainly because spellcasters were not talented meat shields), but I think designers were afraid to create situations forcing their hand on the players.

It's odd when you think about it though. A fireball is just a ball of fire aimed at a target. An arrow aimed at an enemy can still miss, so why can't a fireball?

Of course I suggest letting spells miss sometimes, but long gone are the days where missing was rampant (like the original FF1). So, to keep it simple... Any spell that targets a single person should have a chance to miss. Any area effect spell should always hit, but perhaps not always for full damage.

Personally? I think there are better ways to limit the power of spellcasters than MP. Each person in my game has a different chance to avoid damage and for particular reasons. I happen to think that making anything a sure thing, is a bad thing... too many people can calculate their victory that way.

[vespuleth]

thats very good way to look at it, spoom. and a direction i hadnt looked at it from, as well.

[Dungeon Warden]

too many people can calculate their victory that way.

True enough, but game designers can keep this in mind when designing battles. Sometimes there are enemies magic won't work on or only certain spells will work. A player can never be sure if a spell will work on a new enemy and many players avoid casting spells unless they know they can't win any other way. It's all about balance - how you decide to balance (limiting MP or making spells fail often) is really up to the designer. It is important to make sure no character is overly powerful or overly week, but in some cases one will have an advantage over another. Keep the battles from being too predictable and players will be forced to upgrade all their characters in case they are needed in the next battle.

[KingSpoom]

Yeah, designers have a lot to think about when they plan. I always found it odd that you have a large group of people walking around, but only a party of 3 or 4. Different systems tried to take care of this, and have varying rates of success. Anyone not in the party in my game still receive experience and keep up, but because they also battle (even though you don't see it most of the time). I think that most people's need to conserve spells is because of MP... but I think my battle system works around that. I bet we will see some interesting battle systems in the near future (commercial).

I don't remember if I said it before, but I think the only reason you don't miss often now is to speed up battles. There has been a long (silent?) push for battles to be more interesting/less boring. One way of doing that is by pushing down the time it takes to battle. Thus, if you don't miss, it finishes faster.

[Dungeon Warden]

Yes, I think there is a need to keep random battles short so that the player can get on with the story. It battles are long, then at least make them few and far between. No one wants to fight battle after battle walking between towns - especially if they forgot something and have to walk all the way back to get it. Also, many gamers only have 1/2 an hour to 1 hour to play a game each night due to their busy schedules. If battles take 10 minutes to do, it could take a week just to walk through a dungeon. Most people would give up after a while.

Anyway, it is important to know your audience and cater the game to what they like to play. Since most people here seem to like challenging battles, then that is what you should give them.

I look forward to seeing your battle system in action.