Direct damage versus dot

[Countyoungblood]

So, whats the difference between a spell that does 150 damage directly and a spell that does 50 damage for three turns?

 

[gstv87]

as the game is initially set up, the DOT is in percentage.
for a true DOT feature that makes sense, you have to correct that.
otherwise, the DOT will always do more damage in the end, because it's set as a function of the target's HP.

that being said, and assuming your DOT is fixed, then the DOT will only make sense if there is a regeneration of HP/MP (so that the target may ignore it and rely on its self regeneration to counter it), or, if the effect is maintained after battle and the battles do not full-heal the party after winning (so that use of heals, healing items and tactics are meaningful)

 

[Llareian]

Essentially, the difference is that it takes three turns. What will the person who is affected by the DOT be able to accomplish in the 2-3 extra turns they have before all the damage is applied? Will they be able to heal themselves? Kill the enemy? Nullify the DOT effect?

150 damage immediately is always stronger than 50 damage for 3 turns (unless you have some OTHER effect that depends on the target having a DOT effect active on it), and as such, the DOT effect should have a lower resource cost.

 

[Countyoungblood]

Essentially, the difference is that it takes three turns. What will the person who is affected by the DOT be able to accomplish in the 2-3 extra turns they have before all the damage is applied? Will they be able to heal themselves? Kill the enemy? Nullify the DOT effect?

150 damage immediately is always stronger than 50 damage for 3 turns (unless you have some OTHER effect that depends on the target having a DOT effect active on it), and as such, the DOT effect should have a lower resource cost.

What if the monster uses some kind of healing?

Turn 1 deal 150 damage. 350/500 HP
Turn 2 heal 100 damage. 450/500 HP

Or

Turn 1 deal 50 damage 450/500 HP
Turn 2 heal 100 damage 500/500 HP
Turn 3 take 50 damage 450/500 HP
Turn 4 tale 50 damage 400/500 HP

The damage that hasnt been applied this turn cant be healed or removed until it comes into effect.

 

[Riff]

As an MMO gamer, DoTs usually have high potency in total. What a player typically do is drop the DoTs (Poison, Burn, Bleed, etc), then deal your direct damage. So DoTs can also serve as bonus damage when you are dealing direct damage.
DoTs are only useful after a certain number of turns (depending on your game design). Do keep in mind that some DoTs (especially in RM games) calculate the damage when it is applied, so any buff or debuff will not affect the damage (this can be a plus or minus). It all comes down to the design of your game, as long as you make the DoT worth inflicting. If you are unsure, you can give it some additional effect (maybe AGI -20% for Poison or healing received -20% for Bleed?) to make them worth cast in addition to the normal damage-over-time.

 

[TheoAllen]

It technically improves your damage.

Direct damage potentially kills the enemy instantly. While DoT (if applied in at the end of turn) kills after the enemy take action.
In other game (in this case, Darkest Dungeon), DoT applied before action. So if you see an enemy getting poisoned and it's already low HP, it doesn't have a threat, the death is inevitable,

so yes, the difference it just when it's being applied

 

[Wavelength]

Speaking purely in theory (and a lot of good game designs follow this theory), the biggest differences between the two are the timing and reliability of damage. The most compelling arguments for including both of these skills in your game, rather than just one of the two, would be that the timing or reliability of the damage will mean more turns "alive" for the battler in one instance or other... or different means of ensuring that the damage goes through in the first place:

• Timing is easy to see. Direct damage: the damage happens instantly. DoT state: the damage happens over several turns. Usually this will mean that if 150 damage were to kill the target, the DoT state would offer the target more turns to take action before they are defeated. The direct damage seems more optimal in its timing, so the DoT might need to be more powerful or efficient to compensate.
• Reliability is a bit harder to judge, and depends on other mechanics in the game. The most common difference here would be the ability to remove the DoT state before it deals all of its damage (e.g. casting a Purify spell after 1 turn) - this means that most of the damage is "unreliable" and not guaranteed to go through. However, if the target is Guarding, the direct damage will be halved, whereas the DoT will fully affect the battler in most games, meaning that here the DoT is more reliable. Unless the system is designed to encourage mindgames, I would advise making one method quite "reliable" in nearly all circumstances, and the other much more "unreliable" - this allows you to give the two methods different power or efficiency without creating imbalance. (Often, games add unreliability to DoT states by making it so they merely have a chance to be applied, but I don't want to tread on this area too much as I consider it a poor design choice for most games.)

In practice, while timing and reliability are elements for the player to carefully consider in well-designed games (usually board games, heavy strategy games, etc.), in JRPGs ordinary encounters (especially ones against groups of 3+ enemies) are usually too short to allow the DoT state to be a viable option for dealing damage, and boss encounters last so long that the DoT state's timing becomes a non-issue (if the boss isn't immune to the DoT skill in the first place!). Likewise, very few JPRGs give bosses ways to remove DoTs from themselves once applied, and while the player often has an interesting choice to make about whether to remove a DoT state or ignore it to finish off an encounter quickly, it's fair to say that the enemies inflicting it aren't thinking about their DoT's "reliability" either. Therefore, while it would certainly be possible to desgin a JRPG battle system where the "50x3" and the "150" were very different beasts, in most JRPGs they are very much the same against enemies that you can't finish in less than 3 turns (where the 150 becomes a very obvious correct choice).

In addition to Timing and Reliability, a few other mechanics can be added into the battle system which can make the choice more interesting or situational:

• A lot of good games offer ways to play through, around, or against status effects, including DoTs. Essentially, I'm talking about counterplay. Players might be able to get rid of a DoT state by applying a different state to the battler, or make the status effect go away by dealing enough damage to enemies, or by getting into Limit Break Mode where they can use a skill that buffs and purifies the whole party. These are all different ways to "counterplay" the status effect, which don't apply to the direct damage. Gwent's "Hazards" system functions similarly to DoT, except for a CCG, and there are a lot of interesting ways to remove or play around Hazards (including my favorite, moving your creatures away from the hazard rows).
• The DoT state, since it's a state, could serve as a condition to enhance other skills. For example, a couple of my games have a DoT state called "Burning", and several skills will have bonus effects against Burning targets or can only target Burning foes. The value here is partially in the damage over time, but also partially in actually applying the state.
• Some classes or skills - or even an entire overarching battle mechanic (see the board game Dwarven Dig or RPG Maker's default TP Charge system) - may be designed to enable comebacks by giving extra resources for micro-failures. For example, there may be a Berserker whose attacks deal extra damage based on their missing HP. Dealing the 150 damage upfront will allow them to do more damage over the next three turns, in aggregate, than dealing 150 damage which is dealt evenly across 3 turns.
• As you pointed out, the timing of Heals can affect the reliability of each type of damage to "stick".

 

[Countyoungblood]

Interesting points.

It does make sense to boost dot damage when you add in the consideration of potentally removing the effect before its completed.

I like the idea of adding a debuff to the dot to increase the flavor.

I could see a character built around maintaining debuffs and applying dots work in turned based combat. Not an original idea but id like to see it.

 

[velan235]

I think it's hard to implement DoT in a acceptable way in a pure turn-based game. it's either fall into unused or must use

darkest dungeon has a decent way to apply the DoT , but I still think it is categorized into "must use" spell
FF-13 has these active turn based , so applying DoT doesn't ultimately waste your turn and stack it was quite easy (along with other debuff)


in usual JRPG , battle usually ends around 3 - 4 turns, which DoT effectively only apply at 3 turn maximum, with 1st turn is wasted to apply the DoT. the problem with RNG for applying debuff also makes this option unpopular (some dev choose to make DoT has 90%~ish chance to inflict though) but then again , DoT must be "meaningful" which in term of value , at least it deal the same damage with other offensive skills. there are certain counterplay to DoT , or even a plain healing could make DoT damage meaningless so in the end people would prefer direct damage anyway.

in competitive play such MOBA or fighting game , burst damage actually has more impact and preference over DoT , because during DoT there are ton of counterplay like massive healing, cure DoT, regen etc.etc. while burst your enemy down to death could render all those healing meaningless

there are ton of ways to make DoT (or debuff) in better position rather than "unused" such :

-couple it with direct damage skill (like poison flame) so poison serve as special bonus rather than your ultimate goal

-make the state do something else rather than simple DoT. in pokemon burn also reduce pokemon attack , or paralyze that also reduce speed (change turn order)

-add combo , like the state open up other skills for extra damage , so "oily" will deal DoT and makes next fire skills deal double damage

 

[Countyoungblood]

I agree that normal battles would likely end in 3-4 turns and i understand how the dot would need higher overall damage to even be a logical choice.

How about a poison that deals x damage and doesnt come off?

Again the utility in a normal battle is low but how about for a boss?

Could be somewhat of a turtle strategy. Apply poison and take hits till the mobs done.

Its been done before in pokemon as well as magic the gathering and a turn based card game has a lot of similarities with turn based rpgs.

 

[Titanhex]

Poison is merely an optimal strategy you offer to players.
It's emergent when the game allows it, often in long fights where the cost/damage ratio for using it outweighs burst damage reserved for shorter battles.

The primary difference of burst and dot is in the cost effectiveness of dots.
However there are many ways you can make a DoT effect a more strategic option. Additional buffs, since it's an Over-Time Persistent effect is a good way to roll two small effects together.
You can also synergize it with other abilities, or have it effect a core mechanic of the game.
I suggest having a simple and consistent mechanic when it comes to a DoT. A DoT that simply does damage over time for a reduced cost is useful enough on it's own, and becomes more useful if the fights in your game are longer.

 

[Martin_Arcainess]

The good things about dots and something I can recommend is making them quite a high potency in terms of damage but only if there dot effect fully or mostly ticks for example.
Your standard attack is 100 dam
Your DOT is 50 for 5 turns.
50,100,150,200,250.

So this is 250 in total, as your dot is ticking each turn you can do a normal attack,

Now what I love about DOT's it's an attack you can't spam otherwise your not doing as much damage

 

[Countyoungblood]

Poison is merely an optimal strategy you offer to players.
It's emergent when the game allows it, often in long fights where the cost/damage ratio for using it outweighs burst damage reserved for shorter battles.

The primary difference of burst and dot is in the cost effectiveness of dots.
However there are many ways you can make a DoT effect a more strategic option. Additional buffs, since it's an Over-Time Persistent effect is a good way to roll two small effects together.
You can also synergize it with other abilities, or have it effect a core mechanic of the game.
I suggest having a simple and consistent mechanic when it comes to a DoT. A DoT that simply does damage over time for a reduced cost is useful enough on it's own, and becomes more useful if the fights in your game are longer.

Each of your posts that ive seen has been clear, direct and insightful. The kind of insight i came here for.

 

[fireflyege]

You can make DoT's more potent than direct attacks. Since they take their time to work their magic, you may give them more power to make the player feel the DoT's are still strong because as someone else said, 150 damage is almost always stronger than 50 damage per turn for 3 turns.

 

[jade_angel]

Also, don't make the classic mistake of giving DoT effects a reduced chance of landing, unless they are extremely powerful. DoTs should be at least as likely to stick as direct damage effects - if not, direct damage will nearly always be the better choice.

DoTs should probably be stronger or less resource-intensive than direct damage - given your example, the choice isn't between 150 damage now and 50 damage over three turns. After all, if I have 3 turns, I could do 450 damage instead by using the direct damage skill three times. Why wouldn't I? Well, if the enemy's defense is too high, so the DoT will work but the nuke won't, for one, or if using the nuke three times would cost far more mana.

 

[Countyoungblood]

Also, don't make the classic mistake of giving DoT effects a reduced chance of landing, unless they are extremely powerful. DoTs should be at least as likely to stick as direct damage effects - if not, direct damage will nearly always be the better choice.

DoTs should probably be stronger or less resource-intensive than direct damage - given your example, the choice isn't between 150 damage now and 50 damage over three turns. After all, if I have 3 turns, I could do 450 damage instead by using the direct damage skill three times. Why wouldn't I? Well, if the enemy's defense is too high, so the DoT will work but the nuke won't, for one, or if using the nuke three times would cost far more mana.

Actually most dots only require the first turn to cast so in the example you could..

Turn 1 dot 50 dmg
Turn 2 150 direct dmg + 50 dot dmg
Turn 3 150 direct dmg + 50 dot dmg

Still 450 damage.

 

[Requiem]

Would you rather have 60$ now or be given 30$ each day for 3 days?

You trade damage for time/turns. Is the tradeoff worth it? Depends on the mob.

 

[jade_angel]

That's a good point there. To make me favor the DoT over the nuke, it should be a better use of my resources in some way, and it starts out as a worse use of resources (time). So, if the DoT does more damage - 250 damage over 3 turns vs 150 damage up-front - that's one good way to do it. Others are to make it bypass defenses that faster methods have to deal with (reflects, armor, elemental resistances), to cost less mana, to give it side effects that make it interesting (counters boss regen, reduces defense, etc).

If I need the next two turns to do something other than damage, but the boss needs to be damaged on those turns or he'll uncork some kind of nasty attack, they can be useful too.

 

[HumanNinjaToo]

I think that the whole point of a DoT is to keep pressure on the enemy. You can't always focus on DPS. Sometimes you have to heal or provide support. So stacking up DoTs is a way to keep pressure on the enemy while you're dealing with these other issues. Because of this reason, I feel that DoTs become almost inconsequential during quicker fights, and therefore are the most relevant during longer battles where pressuring the enemy is a more useful mechanic itself.

I feel like DoTs are implemented the best in action games, where the DoT is constantly running, as opposed to turn-based where a DoT is really just a tick. However, some ATB systems managed to incorporate DoTs well (e.g. FF7).

Overall, I feel like a DoT is more of a pressure mechanic and less so a damage dealing mechanic. So to answer the OP question, in your example of 150 on one turn versus 50 each for three turns, I think the difference is how much pressure you are able to apply to the enemy, not necessarily the amount of damage you're doing.

 

[Requiem]

I feel like DoTs are implemented the best in action games, where the DoT is constantly running, as opposed to turn-based where a DoT is really just a tick. However, some ATB systems managed to incorporate DoTs well (e.g. FF7).

I never used DoTs like poison in FFVII. I for the most part never used negative ailments period (though combining transform with "added effect" was pretty funny).