Battle layout: share your thoughts

A discussion area for general design issues that staff would like detailed feedback on.

Moderator: Staff

Which design do you think is the best?

Poll ended at Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:43 pm

Draft 1
2
29%
Draft 2
0
No votes
Draft 3
3
43%
Draft 4
0
No votes
Draft 5
1
14%
A combination of the drafts (explain)
1
14%
None of them. Make something totally different (explain)
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 7
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:14 am

Rain wrote:
Roots wrote:Each character in the battle can have their stance set to aggressive, neutral, or defensive (pretty self-explanatory). And for the record, Nina + Katt were hotties in BoF2 :D


Right!  Would that be an option in Allacrost?  (Formation, not hotties.)  :D


Yes of course its an option. You can set the stance of each character.


While we're on that subject, how do we want stances to change? Do we want the player to be able to change the stance in battle? If so, should it take up an entire turn just to change the stance (I always hated that in FF games, which is why I rarely changed the stance in mid-battle). We can't let the player change instantly, because then they could take advantage of the system (wait in defensive until the enemy attacks, then more to offensive and strike back).

Or, now here's an idea, what if the player specified the "normal" stance for the character, and it gets automatically changed depending on the player's health? For example, if a character is normally supposed to be in neutral stance and gets down to 5% heatlh, what if they automatically retreated back to defensive? Would that be a good thing to have, or a bad thing? Hmmm, I'm kind of :|


I think the best option might be to allow players to change stances in mid-battle, and have a stance change require maybe only "half a turn" (that is, the wait bar gets set back to 50% instead of 0%). I dunno :shrug:, ideas anyone?
Image
User avatar
Rain
Musician
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:43 am
Location: Granz

Postby Rain » Sun Aug 21, 2005 12:52 am

Roots wrote:
Rain wrote:
Roots wrote:Each character in the battle can have their stance set to aggressive, neutral, or defensive (pretty self-explanatory). And for the record, Nina + Katt were hotties in BoF2 :D


Right!  Would that be an option in Allacrost?  (Formation, not hotties.)  :D


Yes of course its an option. You can set the stance of each character.


While we're on that subject, how do we want stances to change? Do we want the player to be able to change the stance in battle? If so, should it take up an entire turn just to change the stance (I always hated that in FF games, which is why I rarely changed the stance in mid-battle). We can't let the player change instantly, because then they could take advantage of the system (wait in defensive until the enemy attacks, then more to offensive and strike back).

Or, now here's an idea, what if the player specified the "normal" stance for the character, and it gets automatically changed depending on the player's health? For example, if a character is normally supposed to be in neutral stance and gets down to 5% heatlh, what if they automatically retreated back to defensive? Would that be a good thing to have, or a bad thing? Hmmm, I'm kind of :|




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.

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.  

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.
'When Zeon lost his powers, he fell to Earth, and created a giant crator where he hit. His moan destroyed the mountains and the crater was buried by the debris.'

(of Zeon)

Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:31 am

Okay, here's the latest draft with placement style #4.

Image

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 :heh:

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 :approve:




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.


Rain wrote: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. :shrug: 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. :approve: Okay, for now we'll go with stance changes being a "half-action" (the wait bar gets reset to 50% instead of 0%).
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sun Aug 21, 2005 7:37 am

I took another look at the layout above, and perhaps it would be wise to shift everything over about half a tile to the right, because if the bottom character sprite is in defensive mode, they would be right next to the menu border and that might look tacky, don't you think? We could easily do that shift and not loose anything in terms of area avaiable to place sprites. :approve:
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:14 am

Okay, here's another draft I experimented with tonight. This one has quite a few changes, but the basic concepts are the same.

Image

Here's a list of changes:

> Grid shifted over 32 pixels (1/2 tile) to the right to put the grid in the center.

> No-man's land has an additional tile column

> Top Menu bar is now on the bottom :)

> As a result of the new bottom menu bar, we have two less tile rows to place sprites, bringing us to a sprite grid of 12 columns and 8 rows. Notice the character sprites are not as spread out as a result

> The swap counter was taken off the portrait graphic (I never liked it there in the first place) and moved to a small section in the top left of the screen.

> Left Menu bar was truncated two tile rows as a result of the top menu change.

> Status bar and icons are now closer together, as you can see, as a result of the character sprites being forced to be close together.

> Added a sample text swapping for the bottom character's bars to see what it would look like. (very little horizontal space worries me...)


So what do you guys think? I just decided on a total whim to experiment with putting the bar on the bottom. The bad thing is that doing this really takes up a good chunk of space for placing sprites and for the left status bars. The good thing is that (I think) the battle screen looks soooo much bigger and nicer now that we can permanently see the top 2 rows of the battle background.


So, the main questions I want feedback on are:

1. Do you think the character sprites/status bars are squished too close together?

2. Do you like the top menu or bottom menu better?
Image
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby gorzuate » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:44 am

Roots wrote:1. Do you think the character sprites/status bars are squished too close together?


Nah I think they look fine. Maybe put a fine (thin) separator between each character's status bar, but other than that, I think it's okay.

Roots wrote:2. Do you like the top menu or bottom menu better?


Can't really decide. The menu is transparent (although not much), and it's not there all the time. At first I really liked it up top, but I also like seeing the background too. :shrug:
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:50 am

Personally I think it looks more natural/intuitive to have the menu at the bottom instead of the top. I :approve: of bottom menu style.
Image
User avatar
Rain
Musician
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:43 am
Location: Granz

Postby Rain » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:06 am

Roots wrote:Personally I think it looks more natural/intuitive to have the menu at the bottom instead of the top.


I agree, completely.
'When Zeon lost his powers, he fell to Earth, and created a giant crator where he hit. His moan destroyed the mountains and the crater was buried by the debris.'

(of Zeon)

Image
User avatar
Balthazar
Former Staff
Posts: 732
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 7:12 pm
Location: Penticton, BC
Contact:

Postby Balthazar » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:15 am

Hawt
"Homogenized?  No way, I like the ladies."
60 Tauren Shaman
31 Orc Warrior
21 Tauren Druid
18 Night Elf Hunter
12 Orc Warlock
Other various abandoned alts.
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:34 am

Hmm, well now that I take a good look at the grid we could make the left menu up to one tile (64 pixels) wider if we absolutely needed to, because of those white tiles with nothing in them. But menus are ugly and I'd prefer to keep their size to a minimum. Plus it looks nice as it is now because everything is lined up with the square portrait in the bottom left.

> If we do expand the left menu at all, I say we go no further than 1/2 tile (32 pixels) wide.


The only reason I'm bringing this up is because I have concerns with fitting the text in; We'd probably have to use a really small font. Here's a couple ideas relating to the status bars:

> We probably don't need a wait text menu (the percentage elapsed) like I put on the bottom there. A bar serves its purpose just fine for wait time.

> Maybe we could render both text and bars at the same time. In a small font, we could display the current HP/SP just above the bar. The font would be pretty tiny though so we'd have to use a font that is easy to distinguish. We could also buy some extra vertical space by shrinking the size of the status icons, which don't really need to be as big as they are in that draft anyway.

> Alternatively to above the bar, maybe we can display the text inside the bar (either at one of the ends, or centered in the middle). Only bad thing about this is A) we have to make sure the text is clearly readable and B) sometimes it will be harder to see what percentage the bar is filled to.


So, opinions about this? I think I like the text-in-bar idea the best, but above the bar might work as well, as long as we have enough space and a visible enough font. :shrug:
Image
Sylon
Artist
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:03 pm
Location: Cheyenne, WY

Postby Sylon » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:44 am

I just realized something.  Does the grid shift take into account the fact that the sprites I design, which are larger than 64x64, will be square images?  You know--the battle tiles are now diagonal.

I don't really give a hoot anymore--if you want to change the grid alignment back to squarish it would be fine with me.  Ugly or not!  Whatever.
-[Sylon Shanings]-, A Servant of Allacrost.
I owe my allegiance to Roots and only Roots! Hail to the dictator!

"DAD GUMMIT I NEEDA GET MY TORUS DOWN." - Sylon's art jabber
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:49 am

Sylon wrote:I just realized something.  Does the grid shift take into account the fact that the sprites I design, which are larger than 64x64, will be square images?  You know--the battle tiles are now diagonal.

I don't really give a hoot anymore--if you want to change the grid alignment back to squarish it would be fine with me.  Ugly or not!  Whatever.


yeah it will take that into account, otherwise when we place sprites in the battle area things may look overlapped and seriously messed up. Its a little more complex for the programmer to use the diagonal grid, but meh, its not going to be too hard for someone to do. :)
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:18 am

Whoo, okay, I finally got through this thread.  Here are some of my initial thoughts on the system.

1) Our "action bar" is a system I like -- except I sort of wonder whether it makes more sense to only allow certain actions at a certain point.  For example, "Slice" could take 20 pts away, stance change could take 10, and ultra slice of doom requires 100, something like that.  So its more of a bar displaying how tired your character is, or something like that.  Just a thought.

2) The battle field.  I followed the perspective discussion with great interest.  In my history with RPGs, I have found that most of the time, most people won't even notice that a perspective is wrong unless it looks out of place.  I am sure many of us wouldn't have even noticed it, until it was said.  My recommendation isn't to bend ourselves over backwards just to make the perspective correct, but rather just design with perspective in mind.  I mean, I don't know too much about the video engine yet, but that tile layout for the battle field is FUBAR.  

3) Damage blending = :approve:  However, because its blending, the first sprite should be undamaged, the middle sprite should be half damaged, and the last sprite should be as close to dead as something can get, if not completely dead.  Because we are BLENDING, and therefore at 75%, it will be halfway between the last two frames, and therefore we need a 100% dead frame.

4) Have we mentioned damage frames for the characters?  Maybe I missed that...

5) Battle formations: I like the ability to put certain characters in the front, and others in the back.  Those in front are more likely to be hit by melee attacks.  Also, what about the ability to "protect" a character?  Assign your character to block attacks targeted at another character (the chances being based on speed of the character and speed of the attacker).


Err, thats all I can think of for now...more to come later.
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:36 am

1) We actually have something like that planned, although its a little different. In addition to having to wait the 'standard' amount of time to wait before you can take an action at 100% capacity, there is also a warm-up and a cool-down time that is on a per-action basis. So for example, if I cast a super meteor destruction spell, there would be a long warm-up time as the character is casting the spell. If I have a guy execute an uber-leet ninja attack of death, that would take up a lot of energy and he's have a long cool-down time to recover from the action.

So in short yes, we do what you suggested here, but we just do it in a little more complex/unique way (the end result is the same though).


2) There are no tiles for the battle field. The tiles simply serve as an abstraction for us to better get an idea of exactly where things are placed. I think that's what you were talking about... :huh: Or was it the tile alignment that bothered (making tile rows offset from each other to provide depth)?


3) The first sprite frame is undamaged, absolutely. The last sprite frame, however, is not a completely dead look. The reason is if something was 100% dead, it wouldn't be standing, right? You can't blend two sprite frames together well if there are radical differences between the two (ie, an arm or leg missing). The reason is that things like dismembered limbs are things that happen suddenly and your arm doesn't just "fade off and away", right? So the 100% damage frames will look like the enemy has taken a beating, but it won't exactly look like its dead (hey, its better than just having one frame all the time right? ;))


4) That discussion is in this thread: http://www.allacrost.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=515
Basically the answer is no, we are not doing damage blending for character sprites. The reason is is that character sprites will be fully animated, and its just too much work to provide 2 damage frames for each animation frame. :eyespin: Instead what we were thinking of doing was doing damage blending on the sprite's portrait, and also a "kneeling down" position when the character is seriously injured. That's about as good as we can do, unless you'd rather have damage blending for characters instead of full animation. :uhoh:


5) There's a neutral position too. :) That's for people like me, who are always the type who like to choose 'in-between'. I think that yes, characters in the back should be less likely to be (physically) attacked. And characters will definitely be able to protect other characters (hey, what do you think the defense skill set is for?)



Hope that answers your questions/concerns. :)
Image
User avatar
roos
Developer
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:06 am
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Contact:

Postby roos » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:38 am

Cool :approve: to more or less everything you said.

One thing, about damage blending, I don't agree that the last frame should be dead.

Edit: I had a whole bunch of explanation about the above point but Roots beat me to it and basically covered what I wanted to say :D

roos
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:54 am

roos wrote:Edit: I had a whole bunch of explanation about the above point but Roots beat me to it and basically covered what I wanted to say :D


Dictator powers 4TW!!! :devil:
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:25 am

A few additional things I thought of tonight.

> Maybe we should have more than 4 action type icons (the attack/defense/support/item). For example: change stance (to defensive/neutral/aggressive), run, swap character, uhhh, maybe some others? I dunno. (Actually run isn't an option but rather a "hold down left select and right select buttons"...).


> Below the action selector graphic, how about we put the character's name? I think it would be appropriate, and also fill up some blank space in that panel.


> Someone please propose a good location for the swap counter. I hate it floating off by itself in the upper left there :(


> If there is dialogue during the battle, the text panel should appear at the top of the screen I think. Do you agree/disagree?


> When selecting enemies/attack points, I think the text should appear in a 'floating' position to the right of the cursor or something.
Image
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby gorzuate » Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:51 am

Roots wrote:A few additional things I thought of tonight.

> Maybe we should have more than 4 action type icons (the attack/defense/support/item). For example: change stance (to defensive/neutral/aggressive), run, swap character, uhhh, maybe some others? I dunno. (Actually run isn't an option but rather a "hold down left select and right select buttons"...).


Hmm :huh: I kinda like the way it's set up (or at least shown in the picture above) now.
I dunno :shrug:

Roots wrote:> Below the action selector graphic, how about we put the character's name? I think it would be appropriate, and also fill up some blank space in that panel.


"the action selector graphic" is the yellow cross with the shield and sword right? I don't really see any blank space there, but if you can make it look good then why not. Is the name necessary if we have the portrait though? You might be able to put the name at the top of the portrait.

Roots wrote:> Someone please propose a good location for the swap counter. I hate it floating off by itself in the upper left there :(


If you make it more discrete you could put it in a corner of either the portrait or "the action selector graphic".

Roots wrote:> If there is dialogue during the battle, the text panel should appear at the top of the screen I think. Do you agree/disagree?


The menu will only pop up if an action takes place right? If there is dialogue, the player won't be able to do anything other than follow the dialogue right? So the bottom menu won't be there. You could put the dialogue in it's place. Or yes, you could put it up top. Whatever works better.

Roots wrote:> When selecting enemies/attack points, I think the text should appear in a 'floating' position to the right of the cursor or something.


What text? Stuff like "knee", "elbow", "head", "chest", etc.? If so, why have text at all? Just have an arrow pointing to the attack point.
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:32 am

> Yeah, I guess the graphic does look good as it is right now. I just wanted to propose the idea and see if anyone thought we should add more icons, but I guess we can just use keys for the remaining options instead. That is:

- Run = hold left select + right select down simultaneously (think how it worked in FFVI)
- Swap characters = swap key :)
- Change position = menu key

That should be enough I think, although it will be a little more difficult for the player to get used to the system that way.


> Yeah I was thinking of putting it in a corner somewhere, but remember the action selector graphic only appears when a character can take an action. This might not be a good thing, because we'd want the player to be able to see the swap counter at all times. Putting it in the corner of the portrait blocks the portait. :| I do think it's better to put it in either the portrait or action selector graphic panel, but its still not the best solution for those reasons above. And making it discrete would also make it hard to read... :shrug:


> Hmm, didn't think about that. Well the question we have to ask ourselves is, do we want the battle to essentially 'pause' itself while a dialogue is taking place? Or do we want  the battle to continue while the dialogue is happening? If the latter, we couldn't use the bottom space for the dialogue box. (Maybe we can support both types and use the one that best fits each battle in question? :huh: )


> No, I mean more like "Skeleton A" than "Head". Yeah, the places the attack points point to should be self-explanatory I think and not require text.......or maybe not? I dunno :shrug:
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Battle Design: A new idea

Postby visage » Sat Sep 17, 2005 7:15 pm

Okay, it seems that we have a pretty general battle design already layed out.  Here is what it is:

Image

Now, I won't lie, there is a lot of things I really, really don't like about this design.  I know you guys already decided on this, but let me throw some ideas out there.  I am perfectly willing to code whatever you guys decide on, but I wouldn't be happy with myself unless I gave this a shot.

Ideas:
1) Remove the bars on the left and the bottom.  They are very cluttered looking.  Maybe its how they are designed right now, but they take up a lot of the screen, unecessarily.  What I am thinking is maybe have the player portraits on the left side with the bars under them.  Personally, I have never been a fan of bars.  I would love to completely get rid of them in favor of a more visual system -- sure, it removes some of the strategy of knowing when to heal players, but I think that could be for the better -- especially if we had some kickass art.  For example, we already of the whole health blending down ... what if we had sprites "kneel" while they waited to be ready again?  We would need something a little more complex than just that, as we are allowing players to attack even when the character is not at 100%.  Maybe it would depend on weapon height, or something.  When Claudius is tired, his sword is down.  When he is 100% ready, his sword is up and wielded.  

2) The number on the top left has to be moved.  Perhaps on the player portrait.

3) The selection menu.  Okay, this is going to be totally out there, but what if instead of a menu, we used a "symbol" system that was a radial menu.  So when you are selecting a player, his portrait comes up in a center circle (depends if the portrait exists elsewhere on the screen) and around that circle is evenly distributed icons -- "attack, item, defend ... et cetera."  When the player chooses one (selection circle going clockwise or counter-clockwise depending on arrow keys), the icons quickly fade out, and a new set fades in.  So if he hits "attack", perhaps the next icons to come up would be "Sword Attacks, Magic Attacks, et cetera."  The icons should be fairly simple, and speak for themselves, but there could also be a status bar at the bottom -- something very simple, to give a text description of what you are about to click on.  

Pros and cons of this.
Pros: Clean looking, easy to manuever
Cons: Requires lots of small images, and makes specialized attacks hard to define without text.


Who, okay, that was a lot.  Hopefully not too much, but I think we could get some good discussion out of this.

Return to “Design”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests