Damage Types - Expanded

[Azaarious]

I originally posted about 'Physical' vs 'Melee and Ranged' here: http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/53484-physical-vs-ranged-melee/

But I though more in depth to the point of things and wondered what other people thought on other elements and how in depth should a game go before it get's too complicated for a player?

I made the following list as a base for things that can grow or shrink for any player.

  Core   Elements 1   Elements 2   Special 1 Slashing 1 Phisical 1 Incorperial 1 Magic 2 Piercing 2 Melee 2 Ranged 2 Rune 3 Bludgeoning 3 Fire 3 Ice 3 Psionics 4 Non-Elemental 4 Earth 4 Wind 4 Time 5 Poison 5 Light 5 Dark 5 Sonic 6   6 Holy 6 Unholy 6   7   7 Electricity 7 Water 7   8   8   8   8  

D&D uses slashing piercing and bludgeoning, where some games want melee vs ranged and other just straight up use physical.

When it comes to elements sometimes it is as simple as

 - Earth Fire Wind Ice

This will leave things in it like Electricity falls under fire, and water is in ice.

So I leave you all with these questions:

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

[NEW] Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

Feel free to ask your own questions as well. I will be following this post, and will answer when I can.


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

EDIT: I never answered my own questions

A1: I am up in the air on this one and it would mainly be based on what kind of game it was. But I like the basic Melee/Ranged and Earth Water Fire Air

A2: It really varies as I wouldn't mind a lot if the game didn't fully rely on them.

A3: Pokemon, Chrono Chross, Final Fantasy, There have been a lot.

A4: Not unless it was done really well.

A5: My opinion is no. Though I keep getting told of games with secret aspects, so I was curious on what others thought.

A6: I would be okay with this.

On a side note Does anyone have any info on this?

I cannot be sure that it MV works the same way as Ace with regards to elements, but in Ace all those elements don't stack.  If you give 3 elements to your weapon, as in your example, only one will be used by the engine with any particular enemy.  My memory is that it takes the one that it thinks will give the most damage and the others are ignored.

However, someone with more detailed knowledge of that particular aspect and/or knowledge of how it works in MV may come by and can clarify.

 

 

[Kes]

40 elements sounds way too many for me. Just think of the way you would have to deal with it in terms of the sheer number and variety of weapons and armour that the player would end up with. The inventory would be massive. Multiply all the usual questions about element aspects versus stat gain/loss that a player faces already and I think most players would find it so overwhelming that they would either give up on it in the sense of picking what looked like a reasonable all round item and just sticking with it, or by walking away.

 

[BloodletterQ]

I was thinking of a similar topic. I'd rather keep it simple and personally find it silly for ice and water to be separate for one.

Also, I wonder if there should be physical elements if characters have just one weapon type or not.

 

[HeathRiley]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

Hi Azaarious.

I appreciate this topic and was actually pondering some of this stuff earlier. And I think it should vary by each game and there are a couple of reasons for this. It should be something that fits the overall theme of the game. If it were a very strategic game and already difficult you may want to include quite a few. If its an easier game and important you may want to keep it at 4 base magic types.

If taking advantage is not important in the world you want to convey, or not going to be important to your gameplay, it may be best to not try and implement a bunch. So thats my answer for the first questions, it should vary.

Personally I believe you probably don't want more than 10 elements and 4 physical types (notwithstanding special types or bosses/important story figures). That is just my personal opinion though, and I'm sure some one could make a case where its enjoyable still to have more.

Final Fantasy, Shin Megami Tensei (persona and others) have all not only had different types of attacks and their effects, but also the bonuses from using those tactics changes from game to game. FF is usually just a dps increase, while persona can give extra attacks, or knock down and enemy.

40+ is really pushing it for me. Pokemon is around 18 types and that's difficult enough to keep track of! Haha.

And yes, If you are going to add tons of elements/types I think it would be a good idea for only a few to be up front and visible/manageable by the player. Too many may be cumbersome or only hit a niche playerbase.

 

[Uzuki]

Q1: Well I use the basic elements like Fire, Water/Ice, Earth, Air. Then depending on how big the game will be I expand upon it. I've only used physical elements like        slash and pierce lately and I like how it adds an extra layer of strategy.

Q2: I don't have an exact number, but it depends how they are used.

Q3: The Pokemon games are probably a good place to start. Every type (element) has a strength and weakness and for the most part it balances itself out.

Q4: No. That is way to many if you want to keep the fights at a certain pace. Otherwise it could take forever if you didn't have the right spells or equipment.

Q5: Again it depends on how many there is and their functionality.

 

[Diretooth]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

I use the five basic elements. Fire, Water, Stone, Wind, and Spirit. Fire consumes wind, blows away stone, absorbs water, quenches fire. Spirit is the most powerful element, as it deals heavy damage to all elements, as it is above the main four. Sometimes, just to add something, I create a Void element, to which Spirit is weak against. (Characters are element innate, similar to how astrological signs have an element assigned to them. Thus, a Fire Innate is weak against water, but strong against Wind Innates. No characters are Spirit or Void innate.

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

If the system is too confusing to adequately remember the elements, then it's too much.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

N/A

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Probably not. It would have to be done very well.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

Potentially, but it could also lead to a major case of guide dang it.

 

[Azaarious]

I did not expect this many responses this soon, lol.

So let me elaborate on the 40+ idea. If a Weapon was not merely a single element such as,

Sword

 - Physical

 - Melee

 - Slashing

Bow

 - Physical

 - Ranged

 - Piercing

Fireball

 - Fire

 - Magic

So things have multiple things that layer. A ghost for example must be hit with something that can hit incorporeal like an enchanted sword. Or a slime that needs to be hit with bludgeoning rather then piercing or slashing. But this is good, maybe 40 was a bit high, I was looking at some things and I could only think of maybe 22-24. I am not sure Poison or disease would be considered or not. I was also brought to taking a look at 'Chrono Cross' as an example of a game that is very elemental based.

Either way great feedback!

 

[Kes]

I cannot be sure that it MV works the same way as Ace with regards to elements, but in Ace all those elements don't stack.  If you give 3 elements to your weapon, as in your example, only one will be used by the engine with any particular enemy.  My memory is that it takes the one that it thinks will give the most damage and the others are ignored.

However, someone with more detailed knowledge of that particular aspect and/or knowledge of how it works in MV may come by and can clarify.

 

[Matseb2611]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

I usually let the game's setting decide this. If stuff like fire, cold, lightning makes sense in the game, then sure, I'll use them. Then most games have additional ones on top. Magical settings might have light or dark, or you could have bio, earth, wind, etc. Sci-fi settings could have acid and radiation for example (I used those myself).

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

Generally about 5-6 or less feels like a good amount for me. Once it gets more than 10, it becomes too overwhelming.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

In my most recent project I only used two elements - physical and elemental. So stuff like fire, electricity, radiation, etc were all classed as elemental. The game didn't require too many elemental categories, and having just two served it well. I could have robots and machines have higher Def than people but to be vulnerable to elemental damage, and this let the player have plenty of options to tackle the machines with.

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

That would be a red flag for me and I'd likely pass on the game. 40+ is way too much in my opinion.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

That is also pretty bad. If the game's difficulty revolves around withholding information from the player, then it's a pretty poor execution. I think the challenge in a game should come from the player being aware of all the tools the game offers and to use them intelligently.

 

[Reavenator]

I personally don't like it when damage types are handled like this.

Why do Ice, Water, Earth, and Wind have their own damage types? It makes no sense.

I prefer the way pillars of eternity handled damage types:

Earth, Water and Wind spells dealt Crushing damage (i.e. Bludgeoning damage), Light dealt burning damage, and ice spells did a combination of crushing and freezing damage.

Psionic abilities, poison, and certain spells and abilities dealt Raw damage, which has no resistance against.

My preferred damage type list would be:

Bludeoning

Slashing

Piercing

Fire  

Electric

Cold

Mana

Maybe poison damage too

If you had 40+ elements, I would be amazed if you even managed to find a good use for all of them. And yeah, it would be too much.

 

[Wavelength]

I think the best philosophy when it comes to battle mechanics is usually to maximize the number of interesting decisions for the player to make while minimizing the complexity.  On some level, it's worth thinking about whether to use elements at all (even physical vs. magical), but if you do, there should be some compelling reason you can point to why it makes your battle system more interesting and not just more complex.

Pokemon was brought up as an example, and I think it's a good example because this is a game where you build a team from a large number of possible members, and can freely swap them in and out during combat.  Therefore, the Types of the Pokemon and the Types of their attacks allow you a lot of different options in your grand strategy - you can find different balances of teams rather than just picking your six strongest Pokemon, and you can sacrifice turns to find more advantageous matchups.  But in most RPGs, having 15+ elements would simply make for a lot of unnecessary mental bookkeeping, where the prime strategy is "just hit the weakness" but it wouldn't really be that intuitive what attacks are going to hit the weakness.  It becomes even more taxing when you have weird cases like "they're weak to fire but strong against piercing; what will my fire arrow do?".

Personally I'm a fan of games that approach "elements" as styles rather than numerical strengths and weaknesses.  For example, in Jade Cocoon 2, creatures were divided into Fire, Water, Earth, and Air elements.  These elements determined where you could place them in your formation, and also generally dictated their styles - for example, Fire types would usually be high attack, Water immunity to statuses, Earth high defense, and Air infliction of statuses.  So in general Water would be strong against Air but weak against Fire - but you could play around these "weaknesses" and they were intuitive because it's easy to figure out that immunity to statuses won't matter against a high-attack creature that's not trying to inflict statuses in the first place.  In one of my recent games, I gave each character an "element" that came with a certain style of play - the Time mage manipulated turns and actions, the Energy mage could boost or sap battlers' MP/TP, the Fire mage had lots of AoE magic, the Light mage worked with critical hits, and so on.

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

1: I would use whatever elements I think make for interesting strategies, per above.  In the lack of particularly cool gameplay ideas, I think the "classic" elements like Fire, Water, and Darkness are good because they're intuitive.

2: It varies a lot by game.  For some games, 2 elements is too much - for others, 12-20 can be okay.

4: I do think this would be too much.  I'd play the game if it were good, of course, but I'd probably ignore the elemental system to the extent feasible.  Do you have a really compelling reason to add 40 elements to your system?

5: I think hiding this kind of thing is always a bad idea because it leaves players scratching their head about why something did or didn't work well.

 

[Azaarious]

@Wavelength - I do like it when games are focused on elements as well as not. I get what you mean about pokemon with strengths and weaknesses as well. I had a couple of friends working together to make a Final Fantasy I type game with classes like Pyromancer, Chryomancer, Necromancer, Areomancer, Terramancer, Biomaner, etc.  It gave me the Pokemon vibe due to how it was laid out. I think it was never finished, but it got me to thinking on this topic to start with.

 

[Fernyfer775]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

I typically don't like to add elements into my game as usually they're very gimmicky, and I'm far too lazy to try and balance them all and make them actually an integral part of the game. Sometimes, they just seem forced on me as a player. I like when elemental abilities have secondary effects, but don't necessarily determine the damage you do with it to certain targets. One of my earliest projects (never got released because it was more of a way for me to learn the rpg maker system) had 4 elemental types. Each element had a secondary effect like: Fire would debuff X stat, and Air would debuff Y stat, etc.

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

I find 5-6 to be fine, but again, they have to serve a purpose and not be super gimmicky. For example, I find the elemental weaknesses/strengths in games like Pokemon to be perfect, but in games like Tales of _____, having certain abilities have elements attached to them just felt like a forced way of getting me to use different abilities 'just because', even if you didn't want to. 

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

I've played some games where elements were used, and it's like, "Oh, well fire does 50% less damage on that target...guess I'll use Ice. Oh cool, ice does more damage than fire..." other than the initial figuring out which the enemy is weak against, it just comes off as sorta boring to me in all honesty. I do like how FFX did it though, using things like Wakka being more effective towards flying enemies, and Auron being good against enemies with large defense, etc. Games like PERSONA do it well too, since when you land a elemental weakness blow, you actually get a bonus out of it, such as an extra turn or whatnot, not just extra damage. In all honesty, things like having an ICE monster being weak to a FIRE attack, but that ice monster only shows up in dungeon X and Y, then what's the point? It seems like a lazy way to add a little flare to your game. Now, if EVERY encounter was a struggle to figure out which element an enemy is weak against, that could be a bit jarring unless there is a sort of "scan" feature to figure out which element to use...but then again, why have it at all at that point?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

I would find it overwhelming to be honest. I would instantly wonder WHY the game has so many of them. I would think of it as a gimmick to try and grab my attention, but it would honestly do the opposite.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

I think that would set a precedence for other things that could be wrong with the game. It's typically not good to NOT allow your players to know things, especially when it comes to game mechanics. 

 

[Chrispy]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

[NEW] Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

1) In the game I'm planning, I am using these elements :::

Fire, Water, Wind, Earth as base types.

Other Elements (Steam for example) use two of these base types. Mechanically though, its only a pretty name for an attack that used both the fire and water element. Because of how the system works, I have to treat each one as individual elements though (it works better for balancing purposes anyways).

Every creature in my game also has an affinity, and it gives all of their skills, and magic an additional element. :::

Holy, Neutral, Dark, Chaos

As was said earlier by someone else, because of how some RPG maker systems work, the game doesn't stack all of these elements if there is more than one, so, to make it work, I actually had to create an individual element for each and every single combination, and also calculate weaknesses for each and every single combination and have that ready to fill in with every weapon, armor, enemy, etc. I made. Its not actually difficult, just time consuming. Based on this...These are the elements in my game:::

Holy Fire, Neutral Fire, Dark Fire, Chaos Fire

Holy Steam, Neutral Steam, Dark Steam, Chaos Steam

Holy Water, Neutral Water, Dark Water, Chaos Water

Holy Cold, Neutral Cold, Dark Cold, Chaos Cold

Holy Wind, Neutral Wind, Dark Wind, Chaos Wind

Holy Thunder, Neutral Thunder, Dark Thunder, Chaos Thunder

Holy Earth, Neutral Earth, Dark Earth, Chaos Earth

Holy Metal, Neutral Metal, Dark Metal, Chaos Metal 

Holy Plant, Neutral Plant, Dark Plant, Chaos Plant

Holy Poison, Neutral Poison, Dark Poison, Chaos Poison

So...yeah, There's technically 40 elements in my game, though, you will only ever see 10 of them on any stat screen.

2) If you go by my way of thinking, and treat each elemental combination as a separate element...there could be a lot more than 40 in a game. What if there was 10 elements, 4 affinities, and then 3 states for each of those combinations of elements and affinities....that's 120 separate combinations. I don't think there can be too many, but giving a player visual access to that many would definitely be overwhelming.

4) I'd play it.

5) If done properly, yes. You could for example never show the player the slashing, piercing, blunt weapon types, but they would probably figure it out on their own after a few hours based on what the weapons were (a sword will slash, a spear will pierce, a hammer will be blunt), so long as its not essential to learn right away.

6) If you can balance it right, then yes. if there's a creature that takes 100% more (2x more) damage from Physical, Piercing, and Ranged, isn't that like an 800% damage modifier? Balancing issues would be all over the place in a system like that.

@Fernyfer775 - If it gets old to you that fire does this, water does that...wouldn't it also get old that Wakka does this, Auron does that? Especially since you can switch out anyone in your party for those two characters at literally any time in battle in that game? "Oh hey, flying enemies....better get Wakka out." sounds no different to me than "oh hey, ice monster....better use fire."

 

[BloodletterQ]

Didn't answer the first time

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

I'd stick with the basics as having too many elements is too much to keep track of. I wouldn't do elements that I'd consider redundant like fire/water. Lightning is often associated with wind but even ice is sometimes associated with wind (some Fire Emblem games.) Also, I think that elements better be worth it.

I like having physical elements as well, but if each character has a single weapon type, would having physical elements be pointless?

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

If you can fit them all on a screen where you can see them clearly, that is enough. Any more is too much.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

If the elements were worth it, otherwise it'd be too much to keep up with.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

I find it annoying. Chrispy for instance mentioned the weapons' elements being obvious when sometimes an axe may slash instead of dealing blunt damage or a dagger may vary between slashing and piercing.

[NEW] Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

You gave an example that's only really relevent for database purposes. I'd shorten it to Missle since a bow may do piercing damage but have advantages that a spear lacks like in Fire Emblem where although Archers are generally bad, they are meant to take down flyers.

My main issue is with physical elements when each character has a single weapon type.

 

[jonthefox]

Re: Q1: I don't like too many elements - too many to keep track of, and often decided arbitrarily.  I like to pick the most broad types.   Fire, Ice, Lightning are usually a given.  Maybe Poison (but you don't need an element for it if you only make it do tick damage).  Water isn't needed, and Earth isn't really necessary either (it's very similar to physical damage).  Some games want a  pure magic/ethereal type of element like "Arcane" or whatever, and some games could use "Psychic" to good effect...but I would not use these if i was using Holy and Dark.  So in sum:  I think a game should have roughly 3 to 8 elements for "magic.

 

Re: Q2:  I always start out planning games wanting pierce, blunt, and all of that, and then I always quickly decide that it's better to just have a physical damage element.  This is because jrpg combat is representative; it's not designed to cover every nuance of a D&D type of combat system, much less simulate real-life combat.  The only real exception to this, I think, is if your game is completely devoid of magic--now there is room to create more complexity within the domain of physical damage types.  

 

 

Re: Q4, if a game advertised itself as having 40+ damage element types, then unless everything else looked absolutely incredible, no, I most likely would not play it.  

 

[Lord Vectra]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

In my current project, I am using 10 elements.

Darkness, Holy, Fire, Ice/Water, Lightning, Earth, Physical, Wind, Quoon(Soul Magic), and Blood.

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

It's hard to say because I never played a game with a astronomical amount of elements. If I had to guess how I would feel, I probably wouldn't care. For example, I love games who have a ton of ailments; I don't know why. I would probably feel the same way for elements.

About the "Well-rounded Equipment" problem, games get boring when you have the exact same equipment throughout the entire game. Me, personally, I like to change up my equipment once in a while. Currently, in two games, I am what I call "God Status." That is when your equipment is so good that you are unbeatable.

In Skyrim, for example, I have armor I created called "Armor of the Black." With the full set, Conjuration and Destruction spells cost 0 MP. I'm a master in Conjuration and nearly a master in Destruction. The power to just use them with no cost makes me untouchable and unbeatable. With Dragons, I have the Dragon-rend shout which forces them to the ground. If I don't use that, I have Storm Call which, of courses, causes a lightning storm. I have a sword that is capable of paralyzing my enemies and, I think, it also can absorb health too.

The moral of the story is, the equipment part shouldn't be an issue unless you want to be in God Status but that's just one man's opinion.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

N/A

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

Yes, I love a game with tons of stuff. 

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

As long as the elements don't effect me or they're common sense.

[NEW] Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

That's kinda hard to say because it can cause confusion. Let's take your bow example, if a player is immune to range attacks, they would expect to be immune to the bow altogether because the bow is a range weapon more than a piercing or physical weapon. Same if someone was immune to piercing, they would expect to be immune to the bow altogether. If they were 50% resistant to Range OR piercing, they would expect to take half damage.

So, I guess it would be better to not layer them but, then again, players will catch on pretty quickly if you were to do so. For I, personally, I wouldn't do it.

 

[Luxanna]

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

I use the default ones (+sometimes a counterpart to the Physical Element simply called Magical or Arcane) because I feel like they represent the different directions of magic pretty good and they are just the right amount in my opinion.

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

I feel like anything above 15 is way too much.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

I often hear of "Phoenix Element" and "Metal Element". Doesn't make sense to me, though.

The only thing I came up with that isn't default in the maker is the "Arcane" Element which basically is a counterpart to the Physical Element.

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

I certainly would, but not for the elements. I'd like to try the actual game.

So if a game's features said "40+ Elements !!11!" it wouldn't attract me more or less.

Building resistances in such a game must be a pain, though.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

If the player isn't aware that they exist, they are superfluous in my opinion. It still somewhat depends on how exactly those "hidden" elements are

implemented to the game, though.

Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

I would honestly find it weird. "Piercing" and "Ranged" aren't elements to me. Sounds more like weapon properties. As I said in Q5 though, it depends on the feeling that a player gets when he's confronted with that mechanic.

 

[Drackomordain]

I myself like logical elemental usage.  Yes a sword can make you bleed just like a spear can, logically they go about it different.   Every thing could be simplified down to just Physical or Magic damage, but that makes for a less robust world and can also limit certain boss or even regular monster fight mechanics.

Now all that being  said, this has to be balanced in a way, so that it does NOT  force a player into changing gear every too minute because of different elemental attacks coming there way.

Q1: What elements would you use in a game, and why?

     -  Any and all Damage types that would make sense for the both the world and the complexity level of the game.

Q2: How many elements/damage types is too much to you?

     - I could come up with probably less than 20 Damage types that would cover any and all situations logically.

Q3: What other combinations have you seen/come up with, and where did you see them?

     - City of Heroes did a wonderful job with "Grouping" damage types (they did a lot wonderful looking back on it) while still providing individuality.  Ex. you unlock a defensive toggle that blocks "Energy effects" i.e. Negative, Psychic & Electrical.  Then they had a wide variety of damage types available to the player to equip so they could focus on the best Damage type for the encounter while still being able to stay true to their character vision.

Q4: If a game had 40+ elements to it would you play it?

     -  If it was fun, of course.

Q5: If a game had tons of elements but only made the player aware of some of them, would that be a good mechanic?

     - The more complex your game, the more info you need to supply a player with so they can make educated decisions, so this is a firm NO.

[NEW] Q6: If the elements were layered, such as a bow is Physical/Piercing/Ranged would having more elements be okay? (This would mean if you had resistances to one of these you would have some protection from that weapon)

     -  This is almost mandatory the more elements you add to the game, IMO

 

[cybrim]

This is a long post but has 2 different Ideas on how elements may work.

One possible solution is "Associations".

Associations basically work like this:

You have a grid: Let's keep it simple-

[A1], [A2], [A3]

[b1], [b2], [b3]

[C1], [C2], [C3]

If your character's association (class/type) is [A1] you do 4x Damage to [C3], 3x to [b3 & C2], 2x to [C1, B2 & A3], 1x to [A2 & B1] & 0.5x to Fellow [A1] characters & creatures.

[b2] Deals 2x Damage to [A1, A3, C1 &C3], 1x Damage to [A2, B1, B3 & C2] & 0.5x Damage to Fellow [b2].

So basically all deal 0.5 x to their own, and +1x/stage away from their own.

To make things interesting you may have 1 character have 1 offensive association and a separate defensive association. This is just a way to visually recognize how elements work without going into flavor, you can also change the multiplier to make sense, just remember the further away the more harm it would cause:

-Example of basic elemental grid-

[A1: Light ] [A2: Lightning/Thunder] [A3: Water/Ice]

[b1: Fire  ] [b2: Wind                     ] [b3: Gravity    ]

[C1: Earth] [C2: Wood/Plant/Grass] [C3: Shadow   ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or there is the more complex Rock, Paper, Scisors^2 mechanic:

Rock

A's

[A1 is Rock/Rock]/ [A2 is Rock/Paper]/ [A3 is Rock/Scisors]

Paper

B's

[b1 is Paper/Paper]/ [b2 is Paper/Scisors]/ B3 is Paper/Rock]

Scissors

C's

[C1 is Scissors/Scissors]/ [C2 is Scissors/Rock]/ [C3 is Scissors/Paper]

here's what I mean:

A is rock, B is Paper, C is Scissors

A1 is Rock, A2 is Paper, A3 is Scissors

B1 is Paper, B2 is Scissors, B3 is Rock

C1 is Scissors, C2 is Rock, C3 is Paper

Elements in your Rock house could be: Fire[R/R], Water[R/P], Wood[R/S]

Elements in your Paper house could be: Lightning[P/P], Earth[P/S], Wind[P/R]

Elements in your Scissors house could be: Light[s/S], Gravity[s/R], Shadow[s/P]

Fire Burns wood, smothered by water

Lightning is Grounded by Earth, cuts through wind

Light is bent by Gravity, Nullifies Shadow.

Fire is sparked by lightning but can be extinguished, Fire Creates smoke that light can't pierce

Water Lays on the Earth relying on it's heat to stay water instead of being ice, Things are Buoyant in Water thus resisting Gravity

Wood is swayed by Wind, Wood Creates Shadow.