Battle Design Topics

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

Moderator: Staff

User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Battle Design Topics

Postby visage » Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:04 pm

Okay, well, there are several things that need to be discussed as far as the battle system goes...things that were never really finalized.  Here they are:

Status Effects last after battle
Many decided that they should not last after battle is over.  Does this sound good?

Status Effects are permanent during battle unless cured
This sounds good to me.  Most people would not have the natural fortitude to suddenly overcome many of the ailments.  Though, perhaps confusion and sleep and minor burns and freezes can be overcome?  I would like to discuss this one.

No specific items for each status effect
Personally, I don't like this one, though I understand why it is of concern if we have a ton of different ailment types.  So general remedies, while totally unrealistic, may be better fun wise, which is always more important.

Lower-Medium-High level status effects
This is discussed in the general forums.  Effects on players would range from Lesser to Greater (maybe more than 3 phases)?  So if you perform fire 1, you could get a Lesser Burn.  If fire 1 is then performed again, your burn could become Medium Burn.  If I then apply "Burn Remedy 1", you may only go back down to Lesser Burn.  However, if I apply "Greater Burn Remedy," you would lose all of your burns.

I think this is a really cool system, and I like it a lot.  The level of effect would be dictated by font color when displayed.

Small number of non-pairwise ellements
It was pretty much decided to use a small amount of non-pairwise elements (elements are not weak towards one another).  Personally, I think they should be pairwise, but that is just my thoughts...

Tie in status ailments with elemental attacks (in specific regions)
Technically, this would be tied in with MAPs.  Examples are "if I attack the legs with ice, and they are not ice resistance, not only may the player freeze, but "slow" may be caused on them..."  Does that sound good to everyone?  Fire on the head may cause blindness, et cetera.  Thoughts?

Spells are effected by the natural surrounding area
This was a pretty cool idea.  For example, Lighting may be more effective if the monster is standing in water.  Fire, on the other hand, may not be very effective on a hot summer day.  

Attack types and modifiers
Not discussed before, but a thought I had.  A lot of what we are discussing deals with elements and attacks.  I would like to split an attack type into a "type" and an associated "element."  So if I conduct "slash" with a sword, it would be a "normal slashing" move.  On the other hand, "dead shot" with a bow may be "normal piercing."  "Fire bash" with a club, on the other hand, may be "fire bludgeoning."  This would allow certain armor to be more resistant to different types of attacks, as well as elements.  So "Ice Mail" may be extremely strong against ice attacaks, but extremely weak against piercing attacks.  So my "ice shot" wouldn't have a chance of freezing the player, but would do piercing damage.

So what happens if I want to cast  "Fire Meteor."  Well, it may be of Fire Bludgeoning, with a general damage level of 15.  Lets say I am attacking the player who has an Ice Vest on...good at protecting against ice, fire, and piercing.  Weak against lightning and bludgeoning.  We decide to attack the torso, and therefore this attack point's modifiers come into play.  Okay, so our fire damage modifier does nothing, and we have no chance of burning -- but our bludgeoning still does extra damage.  

However, if the player were wearing "grass skirt," not only would we have a chance to burn, but the weakness against fire would cause extra damage, as well as the bludgeoning extra damage.

So attack types and elements really only modify how much damage can be done.  Elements also give a chance at causing a status effect.

Attacking multiple MAPs points
If I drop an entire meteor on a player, I can't really specify the attack point.  I mean, when I cast blizzard, does it make sense it only attacks one point on them?  Perhaps there are some skills that attack all the MAPs at once.  Any thoughts on this?  In this case, the attack total would be considered the aggregate attacks on each attack point.  Well, I think so, at least.



How do these things sound to you guys.  I know it is a long read, and a lot to digest, but it is fairly important to the development of the battle system.
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Re: Battle Design Topics

Postby Roots » Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:51 pm

visage wrote:Status Effects last after battle
Many decided that they should not last after battle is over.  Does this sound good?


Yes, I :approve:. It's annoying as hell to continuously have to go into your main menu after a battle is over and cure status effects.

One possible alternative to having status effects not last after the battle is over is allowing an option at the end of the battle for the player to automatically use items in their inventory to heal status, but this isn't a very attractive option.


We will, however, need to make sure that status effects are powerful/annoying enough that the player will actually spend the time to cure them in battle, otherwise they will be nothing more than a nuissance than adding to the strategic element in Allacrost.

visage wrote:Status Effects are permanent during battle unless cured
This sounds good to me.  Most people would not have the natural fortitude to suddenly overcome many of the ailments.  Though, perhaps confusion and sleep and minor burns and freezes can be overcome?  I would like to discuss this one.


:approve: to this too. Status should have to be actively cured by the player and not just "fade away" with time. This reasoning goes along with the things I stated above.

visage wrote:No specific items for each status effect
Personally, I don't like this one, though I understand why it is of concern if we have a ton of different ailment types.  So general remedies, while totally unrealistic, may be better fun wise, which is always more important.


Yes. I think almost all of this :approve: of this as well (unfortunate that you don't). I hate having to do so much inventory management in most RPGs (do I have enough soft's? Do I have enough echo screens? antidotes? vaccines? eyedrops? etc. etc. etc.). It's gotten REALLY bad in a lot of RPGs too (Tales of Symphonia comes to mind)

visage wrote:Lower-Medium-High level status effects
This is discussed in the general forums.  Effects on players would range from Lesser to Greater (maybe more than 3 phases)?  So if you perform fire 1, you could get a Lesser Burn.  If fire 1 is then performed again, your burn could become Medium Burn.  If I then apply "Burn Remedy 1", you may only go back down to Lesser Burn.  However, if I apply "Greater Burn Remedy," you would lose all of your burns.

I think this is a really cool system, and I like it a lot.  The level of effect would be dictated by font color when displayed.


:approve: We can decide later exactly how many phases of status we want, so let's just keep this part of the battle system generic (not reliant on any set upper limit) for now. :)

visage wrote:Small number of non-pairwise ellements
It was pretty much decided to use a small amount of non-pairwise elements (elements are not weak towards one another).  Personally, I think they should be pairwise, but that is just my thoughts...


link to thread in question

Umm, I see small number of pair-wise elements as being the majority vote here. :huh: I need to re-read the thread though before I can post my thoughts on this one.

visage wrote:Tie in status ailments with elemental attacks (in specific regions)
Technically, this would be tied in with MAPs.  Examples are "if I attack the legs with ice, and they are not ice resistance, not only may the player freeze, but "slow" may be caused on them..."  Does that sound good to everyone?  Fire on the head may cause blindness, et cetera.  Thoughts?


I think this should be re-phrased to: Tie in Attack Points in MAPS with status ailments. If I injure you in the legs, whether it's a blunt phyiscal attack, fire, ice, etc., it should have a chance of slowing you down. And I think the chances of status ailment should be dependant only on the amount of damage caused, not the type of attack it was. (But keep in mind that if a sprite is attacked at a point that is weak to fire, then more damage will be caused and thus a greater chance of inducing a status ailment is made!)

visage wrote:Spells are effected by the natural surrounding area
This was a pretty cool idea.  For example, Lighting may be more effective if the monster is standing in water.  Fire, on the other hand, may not be very effective on a hot summer day.


So basically, this would be dependant on the map that the battle takes place in, not specifically where there sprites are standing on the battle layout. If it's dependant on sprite location on the battle layout, I think that will make things fairly complicated. :eyespin: I give it a weak :approve: I guess, but if others want to drop the idea I can be easily convinced. ;)

visage wrote:Attack types and modifiers


In other words, weapons and armor may have physical "elements" to them as well as magical ones. In other words, we can have elemental bonuses or resistances to physical attacks. Maybe a chain mail is good against piercing attacks, but weak against blunt attacks. Sounds like a good idea to me, although I think we'll need to nail down more exactly what type of "physical elements" there are. :approve:

This also greatly reminds me of Fire Emblem, where Sword was effective against Axe, Axe effective against Lance, and Lance effective against sword. :)

visage wrote:Attacking multiple MAPs points
If I drop an entire meteor on a player, I can't really specify the attack point.  I mean, when I cast blizzard, does it make sense it only attacks one point on them?  Perhaps there are some skills that attack all the MAPs at once.  Any thoughts on this?  In this case, the attack total would be considered the aggregate attacks on each attack point.  Well, I think so, at least.


Yeah, this is one question I had thought of a long time ago. I still haven't come up with a good answer, so I'll see what others have to say about this. I'm glad you brought this issue up Corey. :)
Image
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Re: Battle Design Topics

Postby gorzuate » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:22 pm

Roots wrote:
visage wrote:Spells are effected by the natural surrounding area
This was a pretty cool idea.  For example, Lighting may be more effective if the monster is standing in water.  Fire, on the other hand, may not be very effective on a hot summer day.


So basically, this would be dependant on the map that the battle takes place in, not specifically where there sprites are standing on the battle layout. If it's dependant on sprite location on the battle layout, I think that will make things fairly complicated. :eyespin: I give it a weak :approve: I guess, but if others want to drop the idea I can be easily convinced. ;)


I think this is a cool idea. But it should only depend on where the battle takes place, not where the specific sprite is standing....wait, but what if one sprite is standing in water and the others aren't? :| In any case, something like this should be in the game :approve:

visage wrote:Attacking multiple MAPs points
If I drop an entire meteor on a player, I can't really specify the attack point.  I mean, when I cast blizzard, does it make sense it only attacks one point on them?


No, it doesn't make sense.

visage wrote:Perhaps there are some skills that attack all the MAPs at once.  Any thoughts on this?  In this case, the attack total would be considered the aggregate attacks on each attack point.  Well, I think so, at least.


I agree :approve: Spells like blizzards, fire storms, meteor showers should hit all the attack points of the enemies on the board. I dunno, maybe their limbs will be more vulnerable to blizzards than their torsos, that's the only thing I'm not sure about.
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:43 am

Just so you guys know (I will try to make a more lengthy post later), but here is more about what I meant with the attack type, element thing...

Armor equipped defines the attack points.  The battle system actually doesn't deal with the armor at all.  The battle system just says "okay, you can attack here."  Each attack point, which represents a piece of armor, would have strengths and weaknesses.

Example, I equip a Magical Armlet on my player.  Sawweeeet, that shit is awesome!  But, crap, its basically....really really tiny.  Like, just a bracelet almost.  But it is magically imbued...so I equip it anyway.

So it removes the old Attack Point from the armor it removed (if it did), and adds a new attack point.  Because the armlet is so tiny, it is probably weak to all physical attacks: bludgeoning, piercing, as well as slashing.  Perhaps only offers level 1 armor against all.  But, it is magically imbued...so it is resistant to ALL magic.  But...how much?  Lets say ... level 10.

So lets say I attack with "Fire Slash," which has physical attributes of "slash" and elemental attributes of "fire."  Well, perhaps slash is of level 7, and fire is of level 11.  Base damage may be something like "5."  

So, calculated damage may be...
So physical modifiers:
SLASH:  (7 - 1) = 6
PIERCE: (0 - 1) = -1 -> 0
BLUDGEON: (0 - 1) = -1 -> 0

Elemental modifiers (examples):
FIRE: (11 - 10) = 1
ICE: (0 - 10) = -10 -> 0
AIR: (0 - 10) = -10 -> 0
EARTH: (0 - 10) = -10 -> 0

So, now we sum em all up...

damage = base_damage * (slash + pierce + bludgeon) + base_damage * (fire + ice + air + earth);

Something like that is what I was thinking ...
Then, for each modifier (physical and elemental), the Attack Point is checked to see if some sort of ailment should be added.  For example, if slash is greater that 6, then strength should decrease, because use of the arm goes down or something like that.

Sound good?
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby gorzuate » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:10 am

Mostly sounds good, but let me just double check something. The way you stated it makes it seem that a character who has no armor on at all cannot get attacked since no armor = no attack points. That doesn't make sense. I think the attack points should be the head, arms, legs, and torso, whether or not armor has been equiped on the head, arms, legs, and/or torso.

So basically, decouple attack points from armor and you have my :approve:
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:24 am

Well, special case.  It would simply be "no armor" attack point, where all defensive stats are just 0.

Good catch, though ;)

The reason I am coupling attack points with armor is because the armor effects the attack points in such a way that they are inseperable.  Quite literally, the armor SHOULD tell me where to attack, as well as HOW to attack.  

Thus, I think it is better to hack a "flesh armor" with just 0 for everything than decouple them.
User avatar
Steu
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:41 pm
Location: Medicine Hat
Contact:

Postby Steu » Wed Feb 01, 2006 4:40 am

I like the ideas, sounds good, and I think there definately needs to be a flesh armor to define when no actual armor is equipped.  This would go along with the armor dictating where to attack.  If I saw someone wearing arm, body, and leg armor, going for the head would make the most sense probably.
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby gorzuate » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:24 am

Hmm, I question your use of "hack". I still disagree with armor defining attack points. Say we have the standard set of attack points (we all know what they are by now). A user selects one, the battle system checks to see if armor is equipped at that attack point, and if it is it applies the defensive stat to your equations above. No armor == no defensive stat.

But I'm just haggling here :angel: Do whatever you're more comfortable with :)
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Wed Feb 01, 2006 11:53 am

I think what we need here are the establishments of some formulas. I agree with what gorzuate and Steu said: that attack points always exist regardless of what armor is equipped on them. I don't think that "flesh armor" should be zero though. Here's what I think would work well.

Every character has certain stats, one of them being a "defense" or "fortitude" stat or something. It would be rather tedious to level-up four different defense stats for head/body/arms/legs though so let's do this instead: there is one defense stat, and each attack point has a defense value relative to that stat.

For example, I'm thinking of using the following breakdown. Let's assume Claudius has a defense stat of 100. His specific attack points would have a "flesh" defense of:

Code: Select all

Head: (100 * 0.5) = 50 defense
Body: (100 * 1.0) = 100 defense
Arms: (100 * 0.7) = 70 defense
Legs: (100 * 0.8)  = 80 defense


Armor equipped on an attack point gives a defense bonus to that point (and that point only). So let's say we equip Claudius with a helmet of 20 defense, a chestplate of 40 defense, shin guards of 15 defense, and armplates of 25 defense. The new defense ratings of each attack point would be:

Code: Select all

Head: (100 * 0.5) + (20) = 70 defense
Body: (100 * 1.0) + (40) = 150 defense
Arms: (100 * 0.7) + (25) = 95 defense
Legs: (100 * 0.8)  + (15) = 95 defense


When an enemy attacks Claudius (physically, not magically), we factor in their base 'attack' stat along with the damage value of the skill. So to calculate the damage done by the attack for each attack point, we take the enemey's attack stat + skill damage and subtract it by the AP's defense rating. So for an enemy with 50 attack rating and an attack value of 180 for the skill they are using:

Code: Select all

Head: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.5) + (20)} = -160 damage
Body: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 1.0) + (40)} = -80 damage
Arms: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.7) + (25)} = -135 damage
Legs: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.8)  + (15)} = -135 damage



In other words, are basic damage calculation could be something like:

Code: Select all

damage caused = (aggressor's attack stat) + (aggreesor's weapon attack value) + (aggressor's skill attack value) - (defender's defense stat * defender's attack point defense weigh) - (defender's attack point armor defense value)



Make sense? It seems simple and clean to me, which IMO is a good thing. :) Of course we didn't cover cases like what happens if zero damage or negative damage is caused, but we'll figure that out later. And note that if there is no weapon or armor used in this calculation, it simply is treated as a zero value. (I'd imagine that we wouldn't care to equip enemies with weapons/armor that much, since we can arbitrarily assign weights to their attack points and such). Note that this is the simplistic calculation and I left out a number of things in this formula here, including:

> Elemental bonuses on attacker or weapon
> Elemental resistances on defender or armor
> Gaussian random value to make final damage outcome less predicatble (basically all you need to do is calculate the number above, feed that to the Gaussian random variable function I wrote, and out pops your final damage value that you report to the user)


I don't know how I ended up typing all that, but I hope it helps bring some discussion and/or agreement on this matter. :heh: I strongly suggest adding damage calculation formulas into the BattleMode documentation wiki, even if they are just preliminary assumptions of how all of this would work. We can, after all, always change it later. :approve: I also think it might be a good idea to draft up a proposed list of elements in the wiki (both magical and physical) for us to discuss. Thanks Corey! :approve:
Image
User avatar
gorzuate
Developer
Posts: 2575
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Hermosa Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby gorzuate » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:19 pm

Roots wrote:

Code: Select all

Head: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.5) + (20)} = -160 damage
Body: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 1.0) + (40)} = -80 damage
Arms: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.7) + (25)} = -135 damage
Legs: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.8)  + (15)} = -135 damage




You must have invented some new form of mathematics here. :eyebrow:
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:34 pm

gorzuate wrote:
Roots wrote:

Code: Select all

Head: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.5) + (20)} = -160 damage
Body: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 1.0) + (40)} = -80 damage
Arms: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.7) + (25)} = -135 damage
Legs: {(50) + (180)} - {(100 * 0.8)  + (15)} = -135 damage




You must have invented some new form of mathematics here. :eyebrow:


Shut up. I wrote that at 2:30 in the morning last night because I couldn't get back to sleep. :(
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Wed Feb 01, 2006 7:20 pm

Herm, well, my plan was to use "levels" instead of basic stats.  I mean, it really is the armor that provides protection.  Natural fortitude should tell you how much HP a player has.  Thus, there is no "attack" or "defense" stats at all.  Whack, right?  Well, keep reading.  

The way we can manage armor upgrades is by perhaps having a strength or intelligence requirement (sort of like diablo I suppose).  So, GREAT PLATE ARMOR OF FIRE could require 50 str and 70 int.  That way, a noob couldn't just equip it, because they wouldn't be strong enough to use it.  Why the int requirement?  They wouldn't know how to "utilize" its magical properties.

So my thinking as far as calculations were concerned was this.  Say we had "Ice Slash,"  which required use of our weapon.  Our weapon at the time was "Ice Lance," and we were attacking someones "Fire Plate."  

Okay, so the stats for the skill ice slash look like this:
PIERCING: 0
SLASHING: 10
BLUDGEONING: 0
FIRE: 0
WATER: 10
AIR: 0
EARTH: 0

Next, our lance:
PIERCING: 10
SLASHING: 0
BLUDGEONING: 0
FIRE: 0
WATER: 10
AIR: 10
EARTH: 0

So since our ice slash only uses slashing and water, we go to our weapon and add the corresponding stats.  Note that while physical attacks do not get added if they don't correspond, elemental attacks do.  However, if the physical attacks do correspond, add them (example, if we had ICE SWORD instead of ICE LANCE, we would probably add the slashing statistics if the sword had a slashing attack)
So our total attack looks like this now:

PIERCING: 0
SLASHING: 10
BLUDGEONING: 0
FIRE: 0
WATER: 20
AIR: 10
EARTH: 0

Next, our armor...Fire Plate -- resistant to fire, weak towards water.  Neutral towards others.
PIERCING: 5
SLASHING: 7
BLUDGEONING: 4
FIRE: 10
WATER: -6
EARTH: 0
AIR: 0

So, to calculate damage, you do this:

damage = max(attack.pierce - armor.pierce, 0) + max(attack.slash - armor.slash, 0) + max(attack.bludgeon - armor.bludgeon, 0) + max(attack.fire - armor.fire, 0) + max(attack.water - armor.water, 0) + max(attack.earth - armor.earth, 0) + max(attack.air - armor.air, 0);

So, our damage comes down to:

damage = 0 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 26 + 10 + 0 = 49

That way, it has nothing to do with "strength" or "intelligence."  Those simply tell the LEVEL of the skill and armor you can use.  

How does this sound?  I think personally this makes more sense than yours, Roots.

And this way, if we do "ice damage" ... the attack point could say "if ICE DAMAGE > 30, Add effect SLOW."  That would be built into the attack point instead of the attack, because it should have different effects on different areas, as well as with different types of armor.  Thus, have that information in the attack point itself.

So, perhaps our FIRE PLATE says "if ICE damage > 20, FREEZE Player."
After doing the damage, we see that our ICE damage is > 20, and thus, we add a FREEZE effect to our target.


But let us say we didn't use a weapon (like, we casted a spell).  Simply take out the weapon section and do the exact same thing.



Though, how will this fit in with "support" and "defense" skills, is my only concern.  Otherwise, I think it is a good model.  

Thoughts?  Concerns?
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:04 am

...nobody seems to be disagreeing with my formula...so I am going to take that as a  :approve:       :D

So, I think we should talk about "physical" types and "elemental" types.  My recommendations for "physical" types are:

Piercing: Arrow, Dagger
Slashing: Sword, Axe
Bludgeoning: Staff, Mace

Anyway, here are my recommendations for the "elements."  Note that I am trying as hard as possible to get by the typical "four elements" RPG cliche.  So I am trying to avoid color and element associations...which may be pointless, but hey, I figure that it is worth a shot.  Maybe things can have "alignments" rather than...elements?  I dunno, just trying to add a twist to the same old thing...

Sun -- Light
Moon -- Darkness
Mars -- Fire
Saturn -- Earth
Jupiter -- Air
Neptune -- Water
Pluto -- Death


Or, something like that.  Perhaps constellations and planetary bodies can be what skills are "aligned" to, and where they get their elemental properties.

Thoughts?
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:27 am

Er, other quick thought.  Because not all attacks should give the same amount, they should probably be + [0,strength) or something like that when based on strength, + [0,intelligence) when based on intelligence (spell), and maybe +[0, (strength+intelligence)/2) when both?

That way, not all attacks on the same spot give the same damage?
Zorbfish

Postby Zorbfish » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:34 am

I like the constellation/astrological bodies name scheme, definitely something different.
User avatar
Steu
Developer
Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 10:41 pm
Location: Medicine Hat
Contact:

Postby Steu » Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:06 am

visage wrote:Er, other quick thought.  Because not all attacks should give the same amount, they should probably be + [0,strength) or something like that when based on strength, + [0,intelligence) when based on intelligence (spell), and maybe +[0, (strength+intelligence)/2) when both?

That way, not all attacks on the same spot give the same damage?


I believe the plan was to use a guassian function that Roots had written to disperse the values so they aren't always the same.
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:12 am

Steu wrote:
visage wrote:Er, other quick thought.  Because not all attacks should give the same amount, they should probably be + [0,strength) or something like that when based on strength, + [0,intelligence) when based on intelligence (spell), and maybe +[0, (strength+intelligence)/2) when both?

That way, not all attacks on the same spot give the same damage?


I believe the plan was to use a guassian function that Roots had written to disperse the values so they aren't always the same.


Steu is correct. I also like how you are trying to break the bounds of traditional RPG elements, so good job. :approve: Only Allacrost != Earth, so we're either going to have to name our own planets/constellation bodies or come up with "summon spirits" or something else.


I haven't read your post on battle calculations just yet, so give me a little longer and I will read it through and post my thoughts in like maybe an hour or so. :angel:
Image
User avatar
visage
Former Staff
Posts: 711
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:19 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby visage » Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:17 am

Right right right, I know about the Gaussian value.  
I was just saying "between which values."  Should the base value be 0, and the max be the sum I used...or the base my sum, and the max the sum + the strength/intelligence factor?

I assumed we couldn't really use our normal planets...but if we use the allacrost constellations...would anyone understand them?

Herm...more thinking to do.
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:20 am

The value that you calculate from whatever equations we end up using is the mean of the Gaussian RV. What we need to figure out still is a good way to calculate a value for the standard deviation (maybe the stdev is some fraction of the mean? :shrug: ). There's also an option for passing in minimum and maximum upper bounds to the GRV function if you want to make sure the value returned is bounded by something.
Image
User avatar
Roots
Dictator
Posts: 8662
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07 pm
Location: Austin TX
Contact:

Postby Roots » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:00 am

Okie doke, I finally read your calculations post. Here are my thoughts:


> For requiring certain stats for equipping weapons & armor: :|
The idea sounds cool, and it certainly worked for Diablo, but I don't feel that we need it in Allacrost. The reason why it was good in Diablo was because there was only one town which you could visit at any time, and especially in multiplayer mode it would be too easy to just swipe super-duper armor from a high level player and turn a lower-level player into a god.

In Allacrost, certain weapons and armor are sold across various towns, and the further the player gets into the game, the better the equipment they can buy. I don't see how this system is going to do much for us at all, except potentially frusterate players. :| :shrug:


> For having a base state of 0 with no armor: :|
I see your point (HP amount == natural defense) but I still don't quite agree. How then, do we make a character who has a natural strong phyiscal resistance but a weak magical resistance? (Imagine a bulky warrior) And then how do I create a character with high mag defense, but low natural defense? In your system, you simply can't because defense is all about armor. :( Sure, you could set both characters with a high HP, but you couldn't make a magician appear to be resistant to magic and a warrior resistant to physical, unless you supplied very specific armors to each of them.

Same thing with weapons. Do I suddenly become super-strong once I have this giant sword? Is that all that matters is the weapons I choose to use, and not the nature of the character? I see where you were going with this (and I admit that with requiring certain stats for equipping certain articles, it makes sense), but I'm still not attracted by this idea. :argue:


> About elemental damage thresholds causing certain status changes: :approve: with reservations
I don't think there should be a numerical limit of "if ICE DAMAGE > 30, add effect slow". The reason being is that it's too hard to balance numbers like that, and I can totally see this getting out of control and just having everything afflict its status on everything at one point in the game. Instead, I think that everything should be done in probability's, and there should never be a 100% effective rate. For example, "% slow effect = max(ice damage / some_val, 0.65). I dunno, I just don't want to see status effects getting out of hand. :uhoh:


So those are my opinions on your three major points, and I think we need more opinions and discussion on them to make a decision. I am still against throwing out stats such as attack/defense/intelligence etc though, or only having those stats be used for equipping certain things. :| Let's try and keep the flaming to a minimum guys ;)
Image

Return to “Design”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests