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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsCRYSTALGATE'S PROFILE
Crystalgate
694
CloseSearch
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Damage Formula Help?
author=Adon237
Enemy stats, bar HP and MP, are around the same range in terms of numbers. They increase with level, so they aren't a static thing like you advised. Average enemy defenses range from 3-12 points. Heavily armored enemies have defenses in the 30 and 40s.
This is exactly why the defense piercing has almost no effect at all. Let's assume you fight a heavily armored enemy and that it has 40 defense. Those 40 defense reduced damage dealt by 8%. When you attack them with a gun, the defense halving means they reduce damage by 4% instead. This is not a large bonus. Even if you make guns completely defense ignoring, having damage reduced by 0% instead of 8% is still not that much of a bonus.
author=Adon237
If you'd like, I can give you a base project so you can see the numbers yourself.
Actually, I think I already know a relative simple way to make damage more attack dependent and less level dependent. The offending part of your formula is "(a.level * a.level * a.atk / 501)". First, change that to "(a.level * a.atk * a.atk / 501)". Next, you need to adjust the 501 to a higher number. First, find out how much attack the average fighter (don't count mages who won't use the attack command) has with equipment. Multiply 501 with that number. Then, divide that number by 50. Use the result instead of 501. Leave the other 501 in your formula alone though.
This assumed that characters actually gets close to level 50 at end game.
Damage Formula Help?
Why do you have "* 6 * 0.5" in your formula? Wouldn't it be easier to write "* 3" instead?
With your formulas, guns do not ignore defense entirely, they just ignore half the defense. If you want it to ignore defense entirely, make it following:
a.atk + (a.level * 2) + (a.level * a.level * a.atk / 501) * 3 + 1
How much defense did you give your heavily armored opponents? The defense halving will become rather significant if the enemies have say 300 or so defense, but much lower than that and it won't matter very much. Note that with your formula, you should not gradually have enemy defense increase over the course of the game, enemies you fight at level 1 should have the same defense as enemies you fight at level 50.
As for giving the formula less emphasis on level and more on attack without breaking things, that depends on what attack values you have. I could try to give you a formula, but I need start game level and attack as well as end game level and attack.
Generally speaking, Final Fantasy damage formulas are difficult to handle.
With your formulas, guns do not ignore defense entirely, they just ignore half the defense. If you want it to ignore defense entirely, make it following:
a.atk + (a.level * 2) + (a.level * a.level * a.atk / 501) * 3 + 1
How much defense did you give your heavily armored opponents? The defense halving will become rather significant if the enemies have say 300 or so defense, but much lower than that and it won't matter very much. Note that with your formula, you should not gradually have enemy defense increase over the course of the game, enemies you fight at level 1 should have the same defense as enemies you fight at level 50.
As for giving the formula less emphasis on level and more on attack without breaking things, that depends on what attack values you have. I could try to give you a formula, but I need start game level and attack as well as end game level and attack.
Generally speaking, Final Fantasy damage formulas are difficult to handle.
Breath of Fire 6 announced, but...what the fuck?
My understanding is that when a company grows too big, just managing it takes all the time. As a result, they have people on the top who who has almost no insight on the games themselves, they mainly handle the money. Decisions are now made by those who are the most distanced from video games and with the least knowledge of what it takes to make a good one.
I don't get why they insist on the economic death-trap that is AAA games though.
I don't get why they insist on the economic death-trap that is AAA games though.
Battle party size and balancing
Design the power of multi-target skills vs single-target skills and the frequency of death spells and disabling effects according to party size, not the other way around.
As for the party size, 3 to 4 is usually the best number, but that's not a given.
You want may to consider the total number of available characters. I find it rather annoying when a game has a very large pool of characters compared to party size. That makes rotating them to bothersome, while permanently benching someone makes me feel like the character isn't really contributing. This can cause a problem if a cutscene then contradicts that idea. I also find it weird if you have one more character than the party size for an extended amount of time.
How the characters' skills are set up also affects what's a good party size. As a rule of thumb, the more flexible they are, the less you should allow. It's hard to say exactly how many should be allowed, but you can ask yourself how wide variety of actions the player can cover with a certain amount of party members. If the players can get everything they can possible want and still make everyone a good damage dealer as well as getting more healing than needed, the player has too many party members. However, if the players struggles to merely get the bare essentials, they either need a larger party or more flexible characters.
As for the party size, 3 to 4 is usually the best number, but that's not a given.
You want may to consider the total number of available characters. I find it rather annoying when a game has a very large pool of characters compared to party size. That makes rotating them to bothersome, while permanently benching someone makes me feel like the character isn't really contributing. This can cause a problem if a cutscene then contradicts that idea. I also find it weird if you have one more character than the party size for an extended amount of time.
How the characters' skills are set up also affects what's a good party size. As a rule of thumb, the more flexible they are, the less you should allow. It's hard to say exactly how many should be allowed, but you can ask yourself how wide variety of actions the player can cover with a certain amount of party members. If the players can get everything they can possible want and still make everyone a good damage dealer as well as getting more healing than needed, the player has too many party members. However, if the players struggles to merely get the bare essentials, they either need a larger party or more flexible characters.
What elements from existing games would you like to see reused?
The way you switch characters mid-combat in Final Fantasy X. I have seen a bunch of CTB scripts, but I feel that it was the character switching that made FFX's combat into what it was. Further, I think that FFX only scratched the surface of what it's system could accomplish. I would really have liked to see more games use it and explore the possibilities that system presents.
Breath of Fire 6 announced, but...what the fuck?
In my experience, games are almost always worse than what they seem when the developers present them. This game may turn out better than it looks like from what we've been told, but I would not count on it. If this game had something in it which would greatly please old BoF fans, Capcom would have made sure to tell us about it.
Critical Damage Formula?
Then your original formula is still wrong. Due to the way you set up your brackets, the /2 in your formula applies to target defense, but not attacker's attack, hence the unintended x2 damage and 50% defense piercing.
Anyway, now that I know how your formula is supposed to work, critical hits looks rather underwhelming to me. In your example, you're gaining a 35% damage boost which is rather small. It will be better at higher levels, but there's a risk the earlier levels teaches the player that critical hits isn't something worth paying attention to. I think you should tone down the impact levels have a bit. Perhaps you could change "attacker's level" to "(attacker's level + 40) / 2" or something like that? Using your example, the final damage would then be 60, which is a 50% boost compared to a non critical hit, still rather low to be honest.
I have no idea how hard this is to implement as of now. I haven't looked at how the script handles critical hits yet.
Anyway, now that I know how your formula is supposed to work, critical hits looks rather underwhelming to me. In your example, you're gaining a 35% damage boost which is rather small. It will be better at higher levels, but there's a risk the earlier levels teaches the player that critical hits isn't something worth paying attention to. I think you should tone down the impact levels have a bit. Perhaps you could change "attacker's level" to "(attacker's level + 40) / 2" or something like that? Using your example, the final damage would then be 60, which is a 50% boost compared to a non critical hit, still rather low to be honest.
I have no idea how hard this is to implement as of now. I haven't looked at how the script handles critical hits yet.
Critical Damage Formula?
The critical hit starts with doing double damage before defense is subtracted. This can be all from a good boost to overpowered depending on the defense of the enemies. That said, a critical hit already sort of pierces 50% of the enemy defense at CV 0, so the extra defense piercing you get with additional CV won't matter much unless the enemy has such a high defense that you wouldn't want to use a physical attack to begin with.
Critical Damage Formula?
Why would you want CV to cause the attack to ignore an amount of defense? Since the target's defense adds to the damage you deal, ignoring a percentage of it means you deal less damage than you'd otherwise do. This means that against high defense targets, you want weapons with a low Critical Might so you don't ignore too much of it.
Are you sure the first "+" in your formula shouldn't be a "-" instead?
Are you sure the first "+" in your formula shouldn't be a "-" instead?
Not saving giving a better reward?
Here's my suggestion to the TC:
If you can, try one of LockeZ's suggestions. Either allow soft saves or instead of disallowing saves, enforce them (allow separate saves between missions though.) Those ideas require scripting though while just disallowing saving can easily be done with events, so I understand if you opt for the simple solution.
The reward should be enough to make a difference, but shouldn't be something you cannot obtain by other means. The game should also be reasonable beatable even without the rewards and with no grinding.
Those who still object to the idea should not be considered part of the target audience. If you don't find that acceptable, abandon the idea.
If you can, try one of LockeZ's suggestions. Either allow soft saves or instead of disallowing saves, enforce them (allow separate saves between missions though.) Those ideas require scripting though while just disallowing saving can easily be done with events, so I understand if you opt for the simple solution.
The reward should be enough to make a difference, but shouldn't be something you cannot obtain by other means. The game should also be reasonable beatable even without the rewards and with no grinding.
Those who still object to the idea should not be considered part of the target audience. If you don't find that acceptable, abandon the idea.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
