regarding character models

[vespuleth]

think tactical battle system for a moment.

would you rather a charcter be represented by the class he is in (if two people are in the same class, they will look the same) or have a character model that is unique for each party member (something like hoshigami)?

i need whys and such. im going to edit the system, and i want some popular opinion. thanks.

[NASH7777]

Wow good question, When I had mine going I had it so model was based on class. But the other way would be cool too.

What about giving each character a unique model and the class will change the colors of the model's clothes and stuff. :-)

[vespuleth]

because scripting that would be a nightmare.

[NASH7777]

Actually it wouldn't! Have it load the basic character model, then if class "blah" edit color to whatever and when you edit the color it doesn't have to be the same model. It puts the colors in the respective places regardless.

[vespuleth]

except that youd have to allow for the models that dont have the same pallettes, and such. and youd have to script out the color changes for every class, which is not appealling to me. and i dont think itd look that great, unless everyone used the same basic character model.

[Deleted]

Both options sound great to me.
What Nash is saying would be coolest, but it's a lot of work and memory to make tons of character models and make them have tons of different colors.
I find usually only certain paterns of colors look good on people.
What I'd say is maybe a balance between the two, like have "characters" be unique, but non-"characters" look like their classes like FFT, TO, and OB all did (Kachua, Vice, Denim, Ramzuh, Agrias, Mustadio, Lans, Warren, Canopus, etc.).
I think which ever you choose'll be good though.
This sounds very, very, very good, you're making a tactical RPG with your background of TO and Brigandine!!!!!!!!!
(you rule man )

[Dungeon Warden]

I agree with William, many tactic games have unique characters that always look the same no mather what class they are while other, less important characters change appearence when they change class. This is most useful for enemies. Instead of trying to create unique enemies, you could simply use the class models. Then it would be obvious what class an enemy was by the model. You would also know if the enemy had a new class type (always a scary thing the first time you meet them). Story enemies should have unique appearences, but there is no need to create unique models for every character.

[vespuleth]

at first, i agree w/ the idea of having custom models for only a few people. but then, id have to script very heavy class change scripts as well as make a model for every class. i dont know which would conserve more memory. ill have to play w/ it some.

[Dungeon Warden]

id have to script very heavy class change scripts as well as make a model for every class

It wouldn't be that hard. If all members of a certain class always looks the same, you would only need 10-20 characters (depending on the number of classes you use) and just switch models when someone changes class. You would also need a enter map scipt that checked each character to see what class they were and changed the model accordingly. This could be done in a looping script that checks the member number, looks at the class number, and assigns the model (the only bad part since the model command only works on specific characters).

Good luck with whatever you decide.

[vespuleth]

i didnt mean hard, i meant memory intensive. and long.

[Deleted]

Yes, it sounds like for battle entering and class changing the best way'd be sorting an input for party member name first and bypassing a model change, then after all those fail for normal characters they do a model change by sorting what class they are or what class they're becoming. It will be pretty long, and tedious, and repetitive, and boring, and... how you feel?

[vespuleth]

i typed this last night, but my comp died.

im thinking of doing archeatypes rather then set classes. this will mean that everyone will have to have their own model, but i think it will lend itself more to player customization. also, im definitely only allowing character expansion w/in a certain group of related classes. i guess ill start a game topic later if you want more details. any opinions?

[Deleted]

What do you mean by achretypes, like a sword-fighter guy has some classes like Knight, Dark Knight, Paladin, etc.? I think that'd be better since I don't know if it's been done or not, but it's more original and stuff. I can post up tons of class titles if you'd like.

[vespuleth]

i already have my class titles. and yes, i kind of mean 'swordfighter' moreso then 'knight' and so forth.

i aim to do my archeatypes by weapon discipline build, and each class will specifically relate to a civilization or era in my game, but will be identified by a name familiar to the player.

in other words, i am going to have the player choose a character focus for each member of his team, and that will set their archeatype, rather then them choosing the class. then, their will be certain classes in this archeatype, and different class paths in it, that that member can go through, but they will never be able to change the 'focus' of that character.

examples of archeatypes:

barbarian (from the same society we actually get them from, the goths -- they sacked rome if you dont know who they are. focused on large weapons, and nonstandard tactics, such as chaotic melee rather then organized assault.)

rogue (the generic term for anyone who employes nonstandard procedures to accomplish tasks. focused on smaller, faster weapons, and people relations)

spearman (a person whose primary weapon proficiency is a spear. focused on spear proficiencies. dont worry, theres enough here to make this class interesting)

bowman (primary weapon proficiency is a bow. same as above.)

scientist (someone who employs primitive battlefield science.)

my may have classes in each that are the same. ie the bowmen skirmisher, the spearman skirmisher, and the swordman skirmisher, and have basic bonuses for using the three together (assembling good battlefield tactics). or i may have it to where they merely gain that bonus from working together if they use two together (a bowmen w/ a shieldman = a skirmish line. this is how the system currently works.) im not sure. but i am planning on having distinctly different 'paths' for each archeatype. good idea/bad idea? if this were the case, how should i do models? i need to know because im editing the system, and i need to know how to sort and assign models: by member number (a different model for each member) by member number>>class number (a different model for each class) or by some compilation based upon archeatype.

this is what i have so far:

members each have a different model:

pros:

each member appears to be his own person, and no one gets the 'unimportant' caste when you first see them because they have the generic class model.

shorter programming: one sort that sorts the member number and says which model to apply.

cons:

with so many models, players may forget who important people are, or unable to recognize them.

more time to design enemies, as each will need his own model (except like a bunch of soldiers and such, but you get the idea)

assign models by class:

pros:

easier to identify people, and thus easier battles

enemies will be easier to do, as i will just use their class model.

cons:

players will automatically know who important people in a fight or story segment are just by models, and who in their own party is story line dependant.

longer program needed (the more i think about this, the less sure of it i am)

[Deleted]

It's tough to say which is better for the models. I really like the idea of class archetypes and paths and stuff. Reminds me of Brigandine a little. ;D

[Dungeon Warden]

players will automatically know who important people in a fight or story segment are just by models, and who in their own party is story line dependant.

I don't really see this as a Con. Many tactical RPGs use this method and it works. Knowing that people are importaint is scary. I always get a little nervious when I meet a character with a non-standard class appearence because I don't know what they are capible of. This is also true when a new class shows up.

Am I the only one who thinks having important characters show up is scary?

[Deleted]

In a game as hard as TO:LUCT, no.

[vespuleth]

i see it as a con because they will automatically be able to disregard certain things in my game based on being able to identify who is who. also, i see it as a con because it goes w/ the cliche 'generic' appearance of all unimportant characters.

but yes, i agree that seeing a person w/ a nonstandard class is scary at times, but im also thinking that you wont be able to check classes. I want the characters in my game to be more fluid, less template. you will be able to tell the 'class' only by the actions in battle. unless its your own character, of course.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I think it's good and bad to have unique character models for important characters. Cador and Zemeckis, for say, were made to scare people.

I do find that problem some too. I ended up having about 60-80 unique character models for my game.

[Dungeon Warden]

Personally, I feel not knowing what class an enemy is greatly increases the difficulty of battles. If the battles are easy to begin with that might not be a problem, but if you plan to make battles hard I see no reason to make then overly hard by not warning the player about what he is up against.

I have no problem with you making the characters all have different models. In a perfet game, all characters would be unique characters with important contributions to the story, but in a tactical game that isn't practical since characters can die - unless you don't play to let characters die (like FFT- advanced).

[vespuleth]

characters will die in mine. maybe ill have a random model generator... i want the battles to be complicated. my goal is to make most stats relatively usless, and the primary decider of battles to be how good tactics are. i also plan to make my system psuedo realistic, and certain things arent privy to you in a real battle, either. i will however, probably give a skill to the higher levels so they can identify such things.

my overall goal w/ each battle is that there are one or two effective ways to win, a few ways to win that are inefficient, and lots of ways to not win. im gonna (one of these days) put out a few battle tests so that i can get some opinions about whether the battles are too hard, but until then, i am just testing it myself.

so im trying to make the battles as hard as possible, but still beatable by the general public. however, if your tactics involve just powerleveling, and developing everyones strength so you can waylay the opponent, your probably not going to last long in one of my fights.

[Dungeon Warden]

I don't know if I would want to play a hard, realistic tactical game, although I don't normally power my way through battles either. Part of the fun of tactical games is using the special abilities of each character to overcome the enemy.

Might I suggest a rock, paper, sissors approach to battles, where some skills are more effective against certain opponents. This requires testing the enemies abilities to see what there weekness is, but it is better than having no advantage against the enemy. Of course, you need to prevent the enemy from using the same stragities against you.

Keep play testing. You may find the limitations of RPG Maker 2 force you to make certain desisions making most of the above moot points. Good luck with your game.

[vespuleth]

the combat formulas are already set. and i do have special abilities that will help you against the enemy. and most of what ive said above has already been integrated into the system, or is in the process. i think the limitations in rpgm2 are more of a technical barrier, where there not so much concrete as you just have to learn to program around them. youve done quite a bit of this w/ the dbs. ive already got the rock/paper/scissors worked out, only its a little more subtle then paper beats rock, and its a little more intricate then just three tradeoffs.

i understand that you wouldnt want to play a realistic tactical game. im thinking that not many people will. im hoping to build a good gathering among the fans like will that tend more towards tactical games, and wouldnt mind a bit of a challenge. and im hoping that those that try it out find the story intriguing enough to work through it.

its really hard for me to accurately describe how the battle system works, as there really is alot to it (to me) but maybe i will so that you can get a fair opinion of how complicated the combat will actually be. if i do, itll be a different topic though, i can assure you.

lastly, about the special abilities. i assure you each archeatype will have both special abilities and other advantages, and each will hopefully have an equally important role. if i didnt have special abilities, what would be the point of classes at all, right?

[Dungeon Warden]

my goal is to make most stats relatively useless, and the primary decider of battles to be how good tactics are.

I was reacting to this quote you made. I suppose that classes are different due to abilities, but shouldn't there be stat advantages as well. Or did you mean that stat differences overall would balance out so that a level 2 knight vs a level 5 knight could still have a chance to win with the right tactics?

I have played several tactical games, so I have some interest in trying yours. I look forward to seeing a demo of the battle system.

[Deleted]

Yeah, it sounds like Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together is a very big influence, which makes me very excited about your game. For me personally, and I think for most strategy (rpg) fans, as long as it's fun I'll like playing it. In strategy games what I find is fun is being able to (as opposed to most rpgs) win by being smart in planning and using strategy, however whether it's easy, medium, or hard to win doesn't matter to me any. As long as it's not annoying like Hoshigami (you already know what I mean), I think it's good. For example, with Tactics Ogre:LUCT, the last time I played it, I would plan out my tactics well enough to only get hit something like 3 to 7 times per battle, even when they had the high ground, because I utilized Canopus's flying capability, Sword Masters' (not Haborym, he's a little too cheap) stunning ability, archery on everyone (from short bows, however this is one thing that may not have been the best to do), the good chance of killing in one cast (only when targetting one opponent only) high MP summon spells, and more. It wasn't simply just making a wall of front and back row units and beating on the enemy (like Brigandine), or using the clearly unbalanced and way too good classes and characters and their super-cheap abilities only (like FFT), etc. Saiyuki's a good example of how an easy game can still be fun, as long as strategy is used somehow to win (like placing them well, choosing good characters, choosing which were to use, which summon for the battle, etc.). So yes, that does sound good. Brigandine's also a good example of how stats aren't a heavy influence on winning (like DW's example), so that sounds good to me too. However it ends up I think it'll turn out good because you're knowledge and understanding of strategy games and our difficulty play-testing. I'd say if you want even you can when you're test playing it before us make it a little on the easier side. I also like Doan's idea (and you've said this too) of having more things involved in winning a battle than attacking physically/magically and healing. Oh, and another good aspect of TO:LUCT was the WT and how equipment affected it. For say, on all but my first playthroughs, I've always equipped the Short Swords, Short Bows, and no armor of any kind (worst 1-handed sword and 1-handed bow) all throughout the game. However, I'd always do really well because my whole team'd go before the enemy and my turns'd come up faster and I'd end up killing a good amount of enemies befoe they could attack me. Likewise, I could plan my attacks ahead and use strategy in changing when each characters' turns came up by Waiting only (next turn comes 4 times faster) or Moving or Acting only (next turn comes 4/3 (?) times faster. This was also very good for clerics because they could wait when they had nothing to do but not have to wait a whole entire turn to get another chance to heal. Um, I think I might have went on too long, but yes you're game sounds very good in the works.