Okay, here's the latest draft with placement style #4.
I first tried shifting each tile row over 4 pixels, but that didnt' look slanted enough. This draft shifts each tile row 8 pixels to the right from bottom to top.
Green colored tiles are where character sprites will go. Depending on their stance, aggressive/neutral/defenseive they are placed further back or closer to the enemy. This mock-up shows all 4 Cladius' (Claudii?) in aggressive position.
The yellow colored tiles are no-mans land.
The red colored tiles are where enemy sprites can go.
Sprites can not be placed in non-colored tiles. There's an opportunity to make the battle backgrounds a little more involving by using this extra space (ie, there's actual rocks/trees/caves on the sides and not just in the back). The only caveat to this is if we want character sprites to actually run off the battle screen when they run away, we wouldn't want them to run into a tree or something
I placed one spider all the way up front and all the way in the back. I think we need another tile column of "no man's land" because the character and enemy are too close. The running animation for the sprites I would like to span the length of one tile per cycle, so being that close would screw up the animation. Thus, I'd like to take a column of enemy sprite tiles and transfer it to no man's land.
Given what I said above, we'd have the tile distribution like this:
- Character tiles: 20 count
- No man's land tiles: 20 count
- Enemy tiles: 80 count
With 80 enemy tiles, we could put 80 of those spiders (not that we ever would, but we could). With enemies that are either 2x1 or 1x2 tiles large, we could squeeze in 40. With 2x2 sprites, we could fit 20. You get the idea. Basically what I'm trying to say is: I think we have plenty of space for enemy sprites
Rain wrote:I think thats a great idea. It would make battle much more strategic! However, I believe the defensive ability should not be automatic, but initiated by the player somehow. That would make things more engaging...If it were automatic, it would be kind of cheap and release a lot of the tension. We could make an ability like Cecil's 'COVER' to take care of this situation.
Okay, I agree on not making stances automatic. Engaging the player in the battle is important.
Another idea might be, once a player gets down to 5 percent health, create a hidden ability like DESPERATION attacks to come out at that special time when life or death is only a stone's throw away. http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes ... rate.shtml
I can't tell you how many times the course of a battle was changed because of this factor. If we do choose to go that route, I think the Desperation "esque" attacks should be exclusive to the individual character's personality and demeanor.
I had given thought to this (and to "Limit Break" type attacks). I'm kinda
at this point. I *do* want some kind of special attack for each character, but I don't know if I want desparation types attacks (and definitely not limit breaks). I think I want the attacks to be more plot driven or something, like only available in certain battles at certain times. That makes it so much more exciting to know you can't use the move in any battle as long as you meet certain conditions.
Just a thought.
Rain wrote:An yways, I think the formation of the party should be accessible to change at any given point during a battle, like Breath of Fire 2. I know we talked about not making Allacrost an experiment in customization, but I believe that it will greatly add to the impact to give the player as many options as possible in the most dire of situations.
I agree with you there.
Okay, for now we'll go with stance changes being a "half-action" (the wait bar gets reset to 50% instead of 0%).