Hey everybody, I need some feedback on my battle system, I am having the enemies grow as the player grows so to speak. The Monster stats are based off of the main character's. Therefore they will get more powerful as he does. Is this a wise decision? I think it is, because it saves alot of variables and scripting. I will not have any other enemy stats that are independant, other than the boss enemies'. This would prevent the player from being able to run through the game, and I think it will make it enjoyable. The Experience given is based off of the Monster HP, allowing the player to get alot of point values from one set of enemies. I think this will please players who like to max out characters(my friends), and it would be pleasing to players like myself who like to get the quest done without fooling around with fighting the same enemies for a thousand hours to gain levels (for no reason). Don't get me wrong, I like to get my characters tough and all that, but I rarely stand in a field kicking monsters around without cause. I am also setting up the system to have a "leader" of the enemy party. If there are 3 monsters(the max), the center monster is the leader. If there are two, they are equal (no leader), If there is only one, It is a leader type enemy. Leaders have higher stats than the other 2. Please tell me what you think about my system so far, and thank you. #nosmileys#nosmileys
Post by JimmyPaladin on Oct 24, 2004 21:32:42 GMT -5
I think that's very, very good. It accomidates all different kinds of battle-amount people (like mine too, much like that of Chrono Cross), which is very good.
Another pro is that it makes the player have to use strategy.
The one negative is that it may make some players get stuck on a boss and not be able to beat him and advance. However, the remedy to this is to make the player learn new moves from fighting, which will allow more tactics to beat the boss and therefore help to stop this. Of course, there probably will be a cap of some sort on the enemy strength, which will help to remedy this if relied on. (If your last boss is supposed to be pretty hard, it's probably a good idea to make some method of getting stronger in comparison to him, maybe through a harder than the final dungeon dungeon).
Another pro is that it makes the enemies of one dungeon stay the same difficulty throughout the dungeon, instead of getting easier (through player becoming stronger than the enemies).
Another pro is that you can re-use enemies more since they'll be a good difficulty level for the player regardless.
I like the leader idea too, sounds like a nice little touch to your game.
Post by Doan the Nado on Oct 24, 2004 22:52:07 GMT -5
Sorry to have to move this topic, but I want to make sure that the RPGM2 Technical Help forum remains a place for people to get help with areas of RPGM2 that they are struggling with. This is a very worthwhile post, indeed, but is more along the lines of asking for opinions about game development, and questions like that belong here in the Your Games forum.
I do like your battle system idea. I agree with William that there are a lot of positive aspects of this battle system that make it a good choice for one to use. My only reservation is when you say:
I will not have any other enemy stats that are independant, other than the boss enemies'
I hope that by that you mean that each enemy will have certain characteristics that make them different from other enemies, yet their actual stats are based off the player. In other words, I wouldn't want to play a game with enemies that look different but are essentially the same. As long as you maintain a variety of enemies, this sounds like a very worthwhile battle system.
Thanks to both of you for giving me some feedback, guys. I appreciate it very much. I had been thinking about my system for a while now, and decided to do it this way just for the reason that it would be an enjoyable experience for all types of players. Ah, and Doan, what I meant by that was that the enemies will all have differing characteristics, but the HP etc. is still be based off of one set of formulas that use the main character's stats. The boss monsters will have their own stats that can be related to the main character, but more powerful than the run-of-the-mill enemies.(like when i expect the player to be a level 10, the monster will be around the same level). Unlike the regular monsters, the bosses will be preset. I still might change that, though. I hope that eases your mind. William and Doan, thanks alot for your input, it helps me feel motivated to work harder on my game. Oh, sorry Doan for putting this topic in the wrong place. Thanks,
I'm against such an idea. I just don't like the idea of enemies levelling up with you. The battles then become less important, and aren't as satisfying. Plus, they may become a lot more tedious, since you're not really fighting for much. I mean, what's the point of fighting battles when you don't gain much from them?
If the bosses are at a set level, then this could provide a bit of a problem. If you're running away from many of the battles (because of the above reasons), then you may not be powerful enough to fight the boss. So you'd need to spend more time levelling up at once than you might otherwise.
If the reasoning behind having the enemies level up with you is to make the game more difficult, then I don't think this is the way to go. This doesn't even really make the game that much more difficult. If you balance the game correctly, then there is no need to have the enemies level up. You should only be able to level up a certain amount (at some point in the game) before it becomes unrealistic to level up any more. So than just make the enemies that come after that point difficult enough so that the player won't be able to blow past them.
Post by Dungeon Warden on Oct 25, 2004 16:32:58 GMT -5
I sort of agree with Jugem, one of the kicks I get out of RPGs is the ability to blast through low level monsters. This is especially useful if the player wants to do some backtracking or if the player has used up a lot of resources and needs to get back to town to heal. There is nothing more fustrating then encountering an enemy just outside of town that kills you.
In a particularly tough dungeon, the player may want to level up untill combat becomes easier so that they can explore the dungeon.
On the other hand, if new equipment and spells are gained as the party fights and gains levels, combat may get easier anyway. However, this means that combat will never get difficult again, and the rest of the game will be easy.
Having areas you can't explore when you're low level is also a useful device found in some RPGs, but if enemies are always the same difficulty then the player can go anywhere they want without fear of dying. Of course, enemies could have abilities the party can't handle (Ex. turning to stone) until they are higher level, but this isn't quite the same thing.
If combat is fun and not too difficult, then your method may work fine. You'll have to do a lot of play testing to make sure battles work regardless of character level (taking the minimum level the party can be at any point into consideration).
Good luck with your game and keep us updated on your progress.
Post by JimmyPaladin on Oct 25, 2004 21:36:25 GMT -5
I think mainly the importance is...
1) by doing this you are accomidating varying styles of play 2) more along the lines of what Doan and Draygone said, the enemies still need to vary. This is easy to do by making many different formulas for enemies. For example:
say all the party members had 100 for every stat (like if there was to be a completely average/all-around character this would be him)
Goblin, one of the weakest enemy in the game, only appears in first dungeon = party member HP/2, party member MP-party member MP, party member attack * 1.1, party member defense /2, party member magic attack/4, party member magic defense/3, party member accuracy * 0.9, party member evasion/3, party member battle speed * 0.9; with Flee, normal attack, and Defend Therefore, the Goblin enemy will always (with a damage formula of Attack - Defense) damage 1/10 the party members' HP with his normal attack, and get hurt for 1/2 the party members attack from normal attacks, etc. (the MP one can just be set always equal to zero in the above example)
Then what you do is make a different ratio stat script, such as... party member HP * 0.75, party member MP * 1, party member attack * 1.35, party member defense * 0.75, party member magic attack * 1, party member magic defense * 0.75, party member accuracy * 1, party member evasion/2, party member battle speed * 1; with Flee, normal attack, a spell damaging 150% magic attack - magic defense, and Defend Therefore, this other enemy will always (with a damage formula of Attack - Defense) damage 35/100 the party members' HP with his normal attack, and get hurt for 1/4 the party members attack from normal attacks, and can cast a spell that will damage 1/2 the party members' HP, etc.
Therefore, the two enemies are significantly different in levels of difficulty, and the problem of all enemies being the same is deleted (plus magic vs. physical types too). These could be enemies of two different dungeons or enemies of the same dungeon with varying difficulties (allowing for different combinations of different enemies and such). Also note, that in order for everything to be proportionate you must avoid adding and subtracting completely in the stat configurations.
3) regarding what jugem says (I agree, this is similar to what I said before), as long as battling benefits the player significantly (for example: boss' stats are always the same, characters learn new (useful) abilities for battle, player gets money to buy equipment (which alters all the things above to make the party members better over the enemies)). Also, for the gameplay to not get repetitive there must be one or more ways to learn moves not by plain leveling up (leveling up in classes, finding certain items, completing certain quests, etc.).
I was thinking of doing this exact idea. I'll have to write every enemy out and devise a formula for them on paper before I do any more scripting for my system. *goes to get a pen* Thanks for your input, I'll keep you posted on further accomplishments.
Update: Well, today I got my system working for the most part. It still needs alot of work, but I am happy to get it working! ;D
Bump. I have alot of work to do still yet, but I am making some serious progress. I want some input as to how many different enemies I should have(besides bosses). Do you think 50 is good? Or should I stretch my creativity and create 100? Or more? I just need some input so I can start writing the Stat Scripts for all of them. I have about 35 right now, but I'm sure I can make more.
Post by JimmyPaladin on Oct 31, 2004 0:31:23 GMT -5
I'd say make the enemy models for the enemies, and depending on how many you make that you think look good and would be good in your game make those scripts (what I did). Often times I'll take a default model and try to make something okay to good looking and fail (Bird Man! ). 50 and 100 sound great.
I now have 43 models that I am going to use. I am going to try to stretch it to 60 or so. I want to give my game an extreme variety of monsters without making them look like crap. I also am going to recolor some of my existing models to denote a higher degree of difficulty. Do you think recoloring already existant enemies is cheesy or cheap?
Do you think recoloring already existant enemies is cheesy or cheap?
I think it's alright, as long as you don't encounter both types/colours within a short span of time. And as long as you don't recolour an existing enemy more than once. I've seen it so often in past rpgs that it's just become an accepted part of the genre to me. Others may feel otherwise though.
Also, I'd advise you not to recolour too many enemies. Only a small percentage of the enemies you have. So the more original enemies you have, the more you could recolour. Of course, I would also suggest trying to just come up with more original enemies instead of recolouring existing ones.
Post by JimmyPaladin on Oct 31, 2004 16:08:06 GMT -5
I'd say it all depends. If the re-coloring is for a reason then I think there's nothing wrong with it. For example: a Fire Bat, an Aqua Bat, and a Bolt Bat would all be the same model recolored, but it's for a reason - that their elements (and abilities) are different. I don't so much like recoloring enemies unless it's for a reason. For example, making the pheonix model blue and white and making it be some magical ice bird sounds like a cool idea to me. As for recoloring in the same area (as Jugem was saying) is usually not a good thing to do unless it's for a reason (others than one being stronger). I think 43-60 sounds great since you can easily reuse the enemies in various areas. Also, note that if you're doing that leader thing you'll in essence have 2x # enemies' in scripts, so memory and time wise it may be good to make lots of enemies not be capable of being a leader.
Edit: I just realized that actually you can reuse lots and lots of scripts for leaders. Say for example a goblin is slightly weaker but fairly proportionate to some other monster, you just place that stronger monster's script for the leader Goblin. Ooh! You could also give new abilities to leaders (that could be used later on non-leaders too).
That's a great idea William. I think I may have to stretch my game across two files. I am eating alot of memory with this battle system..... BUT, it is worth it. I am coming along quickly with it, though. I've got the core nearly finished. I might use your idea if it's cool with you. Thanks to both of you Jugem and William.
EDIT: Check out my "Experience giving using a CBS?" thread (at the end I ask for help with turn taking) in the Technical Help Forum if you want to try to help me with that. I would appreciate it.
Post by Doan the Nado on Nov 1, 2004 4:41:02 GMT -5
I'm glad to hear your system is progressing nicely. Having the enemies increase in power is definitely a good idea, especially if you have a story-based reason that explains why it's happening. Just be sure to do a lot of testing so that there aren't a very high number (higher than about 5%) of random battles that are nearly unwinnable.
As for number of enemies, I pretty much agree with William. I think anything between 50 and 100 should be plenty. Of course, the more enemies the better, but if there get to be too many, it can get hard for the player to remember which enemies have which weaknesses.
As far as recoloring enemies, I don't think it's a problem, either. It does kind of take away from the original, though, so if you have a real cool, bad-ass enemy, I wouldn't recommend re-coloring it, because it won't seem quite as good the next time.
Since your game has enemies with increasing levels, you don't have the pressing need to create multitudes of newer, stronger enemies for each area of the game. The most important thing is to just be sure that the enemy matches the area that it's encountered in. If there are 5-10 enemies per area, with about 1 or 2 unique enemies per area (appearing no where else), I would think you would have a great variation of enemies.
Sorry to take so long to reply, but I had a pretty busy weekend,
The more unique enemies that appear in certain areas are3 the leader type enemies. I will recolor a few of them, but most will be originals. I have artistic creativity, so when it comes to this area of developement, I'm doing allright.
I have about 6 enemies per area of the world map, with 6 areas total. There are three leaders, three followers per area, and there can be any combination of leader/followers. What do you think about that, guys?
I would think that having more followers than leaders in each area would be better. But then again, it's really something that I'd need to play before being able to legitimately comment on that. Without playing it, I can only speculate.
Post by JimmyPaladin on Nov 2, 2004 1:13:52 GMT -5
Yes, feel free to use any of the ideas I say, especially since the ones in this topic I won't even be doing.
I'd say maybe make like 6 enemies = 3-5 followers + 2-4 leaders (some overlapping), or something similar but fairly proportional ( 10 enemies = 5-8 followers + 4-7 leaders for example), keeping in mind you can re-use stat scripts upon similar enemies.
Post by JimmyPaladin on Nov 8, 2004 21:12:48 GMT -5
Yeah, since you'll make the sropping an item yourself (I think since it's a CBS), you can easily make the dropped items change by loading the leader's member info and sorting to add or not add different items upon his level (aka, the enemy's stronger if the main character is). That is a good question tacticalman.
First of all, thanks tactical man and william. I am actually thinking of doing the item drop dependant on the main characters stats like william said. So at the beginning, you get an herb, then at level 25 you get something stronger. And so on until the end. I am also going to bring to your attention that I am not going to drop money very much at all. I have plans to make money very scarce, which would make sense. To obtain a decent amount of money, you must perform jobs like bounty hunting. The jobs are basically mini games. What do you guys think about that?
Post by Doan the Nado on Nov 9, 2004 14:39:24 GMT -5
That sounds good to me. I never did like the concept of fighting mindless enemies who somehow gave you hordes of cash. It just didn't make sense to me. Also, I have a suggestion: it's a good idea to base the item off the main character's stats, but I think it would also be good to base it off the enemy leader, too. It would only make sense for different enemies to leave behind different things.
Wait a second. If enemies level up with you, then fighting battles to become more powerful isn't as important. And if enemies don't give you as much money either, then why fight them? It seems like you're taking away a lot of the reasons for getting into battles.