Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
STATE RESISTANCE BASED ON NUMBER OF TURNS OR EFFECT MAGNITUDE INSTEAD OF CHANCE
Posts
Pages:
1
DoubleX
5070
DoubleX
View playlists
CloseIn the default RMVXA and RMMV(I don't know if it's the same for the others as well), the state resistance's in the form of decreasing the chance to inflict a state, but without any other change if the state's still inflicted.
I personally feel that it can be excessively and unnecessarily random, especially for states lasting for several turns and with serious effects.
Therefore, my very naive idea is that, instead setting the state resistance as decreasing the chance to inflict a state, the former should be set as decreasing the number of turns of the inflict state, thus eliminating the randomness completely.
Let's say a state reducing a battler's atk by 50% for 3 turns, which is of course a very serious deal.
But there are some battlers having certain resistance on that state, some may reduce the number of turns to 2, and some may even reduce the number of turns to 1, thus removing the situation of a gamble between having no effect and reducing atk by 50% for 3 turns.
Similarly, state resistance can also be implemented as reducing the state effect magnitude, and in the above case, like reducing it to 25% from 50%.
So what do you think about state resistance? Do you prefer randomness or determinism in this case?
I personally feel that it can be excessively and unnecessarily random, especially for states lasting for several turns and with serious effects.
Therefore, my very naive idea is that, instead setting the state resistance as decreasing the chance to inflict a state, the former should be set as decreasing the number of turns of the inflict state, thus eliminating the randomness completely.
Let's say a state reducing a battler's atk by 50% for 3 turns, which is of course a very serious deal.
But there are some battlers having certain resistance on that state, some may reduce the number of turns to 2, and some may even reduce the number of turns to 1, thus removing the situation of a gamble between having no effect and reducing atk by 50% for 3 turns.
Similarly, state resistance can also be implemented as reducing the state effect magnitude, and in the above case, like reducing it to 25% from 50%.
So what do you think about state resistance? Do you prefer randomness or determinism in this case?
Gari
127
It sure is an interesting idea for gameplay value ! Maybe you could combine both ?
Example of ATK down effect with classes archetypes :
- a tank : since he is going to be heavily armored, I would assume he is the most resistant to that stat (let's say 75%). As such it would only get him 25% of his ATK stat away, and lasts for two turns (1 turn feels not enough).
- the normal adventurer : medium armored, so it would be fifty fifty, with 50% atk down and 3 turns of durability.
- an archer : with a lighter armor, he would have less resistance to the stat (25%). 4 turns and between 75% down.
- the magician : almost no resistance at all since no physical value. All strengh down for 5 turns. This heavy down is compensated by the fact it's not supposed to attack. This stat down could only be usefull with specific battles (long battles or monsters immune to magic).
Determinish looks interesting if you use it with detailed gameplay (no room for bad luck).
Example of ATK down effect with classes archetypes :
- a tank : since he is going to be heavily armored, I would assume he is the most resistant to that stat (let's say 75%). As such it would only get him 25% of his ATK stat away, and lasts for two turns (1 turn feels not enough).
- the normal adventurer : medium armored, so it would be fifty fifty, with 50% atk down and 3 turns of durability.
- an archer : with a lighter armor, he would have less resistance to the stat (25%). 4 turns and between 75% down.
- the magician : almost no resistance at all since no physical value. All strengh down for 5 turns. This heavy down is compensated by the fact it's not supposed to attack. This stat down could only be usefull with specific battles (long battles or monsters immune to magic).
Determinish looks interesting if you use it with detailed gameplay (no room for bad luck).
I suspect a system where state resistance depends on the severity and/or length of the state might lend itself to skills/abilities that induce states to either be the least used skills by players, or never be used by players at all. I would also highly suspect bosses would be immune to states, unless a state would benefit them. Instant-death attacks probably shouldn't exist, at all, as the resistance factor should/would be so incredibly high, it wouldn't even be funny.
Though, the quality of "severeness" in regards to states can vary highly between games. The OP mentions a state that debuffs STR/ATK to 50% for three turns, but, how bad is that, really? What if the players have access to a buff that either neutralizes that state, if not outright replace it with a buff for those stats for just as long? What about a classic poison state? How cheap are antidotes? Are all states removed at end-of-battle, or do some carry over?
Though, the quality of "severeness" in regards to states can vary highly between games. The OP mentions a state that debuffs STR/ATK to 50% for three turns, but, how bad is that, really? What if the players have access to a buff that either neutralizes that state, if not outright replace it with a buff for those stats for just as long? What about a classic poison state? How cheap are antidotes? Are all states removed at end-of-battle, or do some carry over?
DoubleX
5070
Let's throw out 1 more example: hp/mp sap(poison) states in an ATB system, where something like 100hp/mp is reduced per second and the state turn will also be reduced per second(of course, the second's combined by all ATB frame updates, so time spent on inputting actions with the full wait ATB mode doesn't count).
In this case, maybe it makes sense for such a state resistance to be based on turns, so battlers having that state may have its turn reduced to say, 30 from 60.
Of course, reducing the magnitude from 100 to 50 as a form of state resistance might also work well here :)
In this case, maybe it makes sense for such a state resistance to be based on turns, so battlers having that state may have its turn reduced to say, 30 from 60.
Of course, reducing the magnitude from 100 to 50 as a form of state resistance might also work well here :)
Ramshackin
1462
I use the system you describe in my current game. States have 100% chance to be applied, but the enemy's resistance affects how many turns the state lasts.
It helps greatly for states that vary wildly based on the situation. For example, paralyze an enemy for 3 turns isn't a big deal when fighting 6 enemies, but it's huge when up against a boss monster, so the boss resists it down to 1 turn.
It helps greatly for states that vary wildly based on the situation. For example, paralyze an enemy for 3 turns isn't a big deal when fighting 6 enemies, but it's huge when up against a boss monster, so the boss resists it down to 1 turn.
Acra
332
I don't know if it's useful information, but Draug's Resurrection does something rather similar to this, however it's still ultimately determined by a roll, although it does have a minimum floor on it, and is usually heavily based on associated stats, rather than a single simple number.
Ailments, and their beneficial equivalent, Enhancements, have a number associated with them, which is either potency, duration, or both. Because of this range of potency, you can stack the same Ailment/Enhancement multiple times, but it is extremely likely to land at least a weak instance of it. In relation to what you're talking about, something like Poison would land with a potency of 6-8 per cast on someone weak to it, but 1-3 on someone resistant. This results in the one weak to it taking double damage per tick, but it could be double-applied to the resistant one to reach a similar potency.
For some examples, Bind and Silence prevent you from using skills/spells based on the severity of the Ailment. This works twofold, as it makes powerful spells extremely easy to block, so the weak stuff has a reason to exist later on. Poison doesn't decay on its own, and the potency determines how much it takes per turn. It's a game with small numbers, so the max of 9 HP per tick is quite deadly. The plethora of defensive Enhancements usually have their effectiveness based on their potency, with Terra Shield absorbing 60% of oncoming physical damage at 6 potency. Some decay when hit, some on time. Some spells utilize Ailments/Enhancements to become more deadly, or shatter them instantly.
It should also be noted that stat changes are handled differently; they're straight changes to stats that last the duration of the fight, but are somewhat weak as a result, and see diminishing returns if you try to push too high. As each character has three slots for Ailments/Enhancements, there's not enough room for stat changes to be treated similarly without them flooding the system and being bothersome to read. But there fundamentally isn't any reason you couldn't do it in such a way; one potency of ATK down is 10%, but 5 is 50%. As time passes, the potency of the debuff fades in suit, becoming -40% ATK, then -30%, and on and on.
Ailments, and their beneficial equivalent, Enhancements, have a number associated with them, which is either potency, duration, or both. Because of this range of potency, you can stack the same Ailment/Enhancement multiple times, but it is extremely likely to land at least a weak instance of it. In relation to what you're talking about, something like Poison would land with a potency of 6-8 per cast on someone weak to it, but 1-3 on someone resistant. This results in the one weak to it taking double damage per tick, but it could be double-applied to the resistant one to reach a similar potency.
For some examples, Bind and Silence prevent you from using skills/spells based on the severity of the Ailment. This works twofold, as it makes powerful spells extremely easy to block, so the weak stuff has a reason to exist later on. Poison doesn't decay on its own, and the potency determines how much it takes per turn. It's a game with small numbers, so the max of 9 HP per tick is quite deadly. The plethora of defensive Enhancements usually have their effectiveness based on their potency, with Terra Shield absorbing 60% of oncoming physical damage at 6 potency. Some decay when hit, some on time. Some spells utilize Ailments/Enhancements to become more deadly, or shatter them instantly.
It should also be noted that stat changes are handled differently; they're straight changes to stats that last the duration of the fight, but are somewhat weak as a result, and see diminishing returns if you try to push too high. As each character has three slots for Ailments/Enhancements, there's not enough room for stat changes to be treated similarly without them flooding the system and being bothersome to read. But there fundamentally isn't any reason you couldn't do it in such a way; one potency of ATK down is 10%, but 5 is 50%. As time passes, the potency of the debuff fades in suit, becoming -40% ATK, then -30%, and on and on.
Pages:
1
