Okay so you're in the sell menu of a shop, getting rid of crap you don't need. Having the attack power + other stats readily visible on each item. "I know my best weapon is like 150-something attack power, so let's see what I can get rid of. Oh, this Frost dagger only has 5 attack power? That's not even useful against enemies weak to ice. SELL!"
The guy directly below you summed it up perfectly, so I'll just quote him:
This is why I prefer to just have the scripts/plugins to show this stuff in the shops as well. They exist, and I prefer an RPG have them. Though, to be honest, most players either "sell everything that isn't equipped" or "hoard everything". Unless we're talking something akin to an MMO where a player will keep a few sets of equipment for a character in order to better tackle specific situations.
Most RPG's are a linear experience in which you need only tackle a situation once... or if you must tackle it again... well, the devs gave you upgraded equipment to handle it, so you could've safely sold the old junk when it was no longer equipped.
Just my observation on RPG Players.
Except they weren't better in some cases. Imagine my surprise when I found out Protect 2 was actually worse than Protect. Or when I realized Holy was a better attack spell than Flare or any of the black magic due to its undisclosed 100% hit rate. While a player could generally guess that an ability was better the higher its JP and MP costs were, it remained just that without modifiers: a guess.
Yeah, there was really no way to know what "for sure" was better because you didn't have access to the formulas or all the tidbits. But, the general convention of the entire game was, "if you unlocked it, it was better". Holy or Flare weren't always "better" to use either as they had long cast times which could put your own party in danger or miss targets entirely. Shorter cast times were generally better for enemies that weren't a "big boss" in Final Fantasy Tactics.
But, as stated before... it's not the best way (or even a great way) to use the descriptions in game... But, it worked for what the game was. The general RPG conventions held true for most of the skills and equipment in the game and a detailed breakdown of the stats wasn't really that necessary. This was my point. There are situations in which it is entirely unnecessary to include stats in your description. Especially when all you're communicating is "this is better than that". If it does something more than "this is better than that", then I'd say you need some description to indicate that.
But, if it's just "an upgrade" to an already existing skill, while the lower quality version of that skill exists... There's not a whole lot of reason to say "The new skill is better by X amount". Players will infer that naturally. I'd say, reserve the "damage details" for RPG systems in which all skills are pretty equal in power, but do different things to make them equally powerful.
Only against groups. Against any single target situation, you're going to want to use one of the other two, depending on resistance. Thunderbolt is literally more damage to a single target for less MP, which means less "down turns" spent chugging potions, meditating, or whatever to get MP.
Are there a lot of "single target" situations in your RPG? Most RPG's typically have "multiple target" situations as the norm. It's rare to run into combat with 3 or less enemies. Even more rare in the "single target" situation which is typically reserved for boss fights... which typically comprise roughly 2% of all combat across the entire RPG.
But, most RPG's give you a fairly large MP Pool to work with and MP Restoratives are fairly common as chest/monster drops... plus cheap to buy to boot... and most players will have a massive abundance of cash anyway.
Most players will spam the "AOE" stuff, so long as it's powerful enough and results in instant wins and just drop the MP Consumable after combat has ended. Rarely does combat outside of a boss battle last more than two or three turns... not enough time to "chug a potion" in mid combat to result in "down turns". It might be an issue with Boss fights, but they're only going to be like 2% of all combat anyway.
Just my two cents on it.
It doesn't matter. What does matter is that the player sees that Thunderbolt has a bigger modifier than Lightning Storm and thinks, "I'll probably want to use Thunderbolt in single target situations, even if it only does a little bit more."
They might. If you have equal amount of combat with single targets and multiple targets. Most RPG's don't. So, you'll run into a lot of the "multi-target spam". Simply because it's more efficient in terms of "time spent in combat" to a player.
To me, minor/moderate/major/mega/ultra/whatever is pretty useless. "These two fire spells both say major, so are they exactly the same?" I could compare it to what you said about modifiers. Major damage? Okay great, but what's that mean? At least a modifier, even if I don't have access to the formula, gives me a quantifiable value rather than, "it hits harder than the moderate damage version"
- Fire 1: Deals moderate fire damage to one enemy
- Fire 2: Deals major fire damage to one enemy
vs
- Fire 1: Deals fire damage (2x) to one enemy
- Fire 2: Deals fire damage (4x) to one enemy
The first set just tells me that "one is better than the other." The second set tells me that same information, but 1) shows me the magnitude of improvement and 2) actually takes
less space in the description.
I suppose if you were viewing them as "stand alone" spells, you would see it that way. Which was my point to the skills a while back... You're just showing "one is better than the other".
Consider if something just says, "Does 200% more damage" or says "Does 400%" more damage. More damage of what? What's the base damage? Do I just infer it's more than the damage I'm doing now? If so, I could've made that inference without the description. If all you're communicating is, "this does more damage", there's no need to put it in the description box in my opinion. RPG's typically follow a fairly "linear" path of power gain. You have a few weapons/skills of similar strength, then you move up to the next set, and so on, so forth. Fire 2 is going to be better than Fire 1. Literally takes 1 space to make that obvious in comparison to "Deals fire damage 4x to one enemy". I'd simply type it as "Fire Damage. Single Target." and let the player make the inference that it's stronger than Fire 1... because it's Fire 2. Though, my own system doesn't say, "Fire Damage". Instead it simply displays the element icon in front of the skill so players know what element it is. Saves even more room.
However, I use the "this does more damage" vague descriptions because the player is
choosing how their skill levels up. The second version of the skill will always do more damage than the first version. Doesn't matter which choice made. But, one version tells the player that they're gaining a "significant boost".
Tier 1 "Fire" has this description:
"Summons flames from the fingertips. Causes minor damage and inflicts L1 Burn at 50%."
It can then level up along one of two paths. "Power" or "Effect".
If you go "Power":
"Summons flames from the fingertips. Causes moderate damage and inflicts L1 Burn at 60%."
If you go "Effect":
"Summons flames from the fingertips. Causes minor damage and inflicts L2 Burn at 60%."
When you pick a path, the previous version of the skill is completely wiped out. It is replaced with the new version of your choosing. So, when the player is given the option of "this is still minor damage" in comparison to "this is moderate damage", they can instantly and easily tell that it's a significant boost (and it is). Same with going the "Effect" Route. "Burn" gains a whole level. What does Level 2 burn do? Who knows? But, it's better than Level 1 Burn.
My skills that do use the "multiplier" in the description do so for the same reason I use "minor/moderate/major/serious/deadly" as damage descriptors. Basically, to allow the player to make an informed decision about the choice they're making when it comes time to "Level Up" the skill.
In the case of "Fire", the player is simply given a +10 bonus at Tier 1 of the skill. If they pick "Power", that bonus increases to +30. A significant amount of extra damage at that stage of the game. Meanwhile, if they pick "Effect", the bonus is only +20. It's still a good boost, but nowhere near as significant as 20 extra points of damage. Those bonuses go up and up as you go along the tree.
Now, if I did it your way, I'd have to write, "(+10 damage) next to the skills. It simply doesn't make sense to do so. It makes more sense to have the player assume their skill is more powerful (because it is, regardless of the choice made) and to infer that one option does significantly more damage than another option.
I simply see no reason to advertise the exact amount of power in the Skill Description if you aren't giving the player the formula to work with.
After all, is your x4 bonus before damage is calculated or after? Do you calculate the damage and then multiply? Do you multiply as the damage formula? Either way can cause massive differences in numbers. As a player, I might not know what I'm seeing. What if this enemy isn't weak to Fire, but I'm using the x6 damage? Do I assume my stats are too low? Do I assume it's not weak to Fire? Do I try to figure out if the formula itself is to blame for the low damage, due to how it's calculated?
When you start throwing numbers at a player, it becomes easy to confuse them. Especially if those numbers have little meaning to them beyond, "It's better". If all you want to communicate is, "It's better", you can simply do that without a description box.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. While it's nice to have room to put a bunch of flavor text, ultimately, "This sword was lovingly crafted by forest elves and blessed under the light of a full moon" is far less useful than something that lets me see stats when viewing it outside of the equip screen.
This is why I recommend having the same types of plugins/scripts to show these stats within shops as well. It lets you use your Description Boxes for the truly important stuff.
You know, "45% resistance to Ice", "Doubles money from battle", "halves encounter rate", "counter attacks 25% of the time". I just see no reason to advertise portions of the formula simply to communicate, "It's better". Static stats should be advertised in the Equipment Screen and Shop Screens. Especially with all that space that can be used for it, and it isn't, on the screen.
My equipment works pretty much like that. If it does nothing but raise or lower those static stats by set amounts, I let the menu interfaces where the player will interact with this equipment tell them. If it does something beyond those static stats... it's in the description.
My "Assassin's Dagger" reads: "A highly poisonous dagger that has slain kings. 50% chance to inflict L1 Poison."
Compared to the "Training Sword: "This almost looks like a toy a child would use to pretend to be a knight. It's made of wood."
The dagger does more than raise or lower stats. What else it does is detailed. The sword just raises/lowers stats. It needs no extra details.
I just think there's no need to communicate things like, "+15 Agility" on a piece of equipment unless the player has no way to know that. I see no reason to have "6x Damage" on a skill when you earned it halfway through the game... because at that point, yes, it's probably going to be better. Unless you're using a system where the player learns no new skills via Level Up or as the story progresses. Then, it makes more sense to include the modifiers as the player has access to everything and needs to know what it's good for (and the combat system will have been designed for the player to have access to all these options at once, so using all the options will be necessary).
Just my two cents.
