'Hard', static stat buffs or less static, incremental, stackable stat buffs in battle?

[Feldschlacht IV]

I asked this question a while ago elsewhere, but I'd like to ask you guys (and discuss it some more)


Got a question for you guys, and I apologize for not making the premise clearer in the topic; in game making and game player, what do you prefer; a system where buffs applied in battle to base stats are in defined, static increments like States, or a system where buffs applied in battle are a looser, less strict application, like buffs where it's some loose number like 23+ attack, and that buff can be applied and stacked over and over x number of times?

For example, do you prefer

A. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob. ATK UP is a state applied to Bob that raises his attack value by 50%. It wears off in three turns, but cannot be stacked.

B. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob. Bob's ATK is raised by 14. The next turn, Alex casts ATK UP on Bob again. Bob's ATK is raised again by 17. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob again for the next turn, but it has no effect. Bob's ATK boost slowly degrades to its normal value.

This is something that I've always messed around with in game making without a clear consensus (but I personally lean toward the former). Tell me what you think!

 

[hadecynn]

The preference comes down to how you balance your numbers in the grand scheme of your design. For example, think about the opportunity costs of Alex using the buff in either of its forms compared to a doing normal attack. If the damage output from Alex normal-attacking 3 turns in a row is going to be higher than the damage output that Bob can achieve after Alex's buff, then the buff skill is useless (at least from the damage dealing perspective; there might be other unique uses you have planned for the skill, but I'm not going to go into that). You also need to see if it scales well. That is, the buff skill might be a better option for Alex than attacking when they are at level 1, but attacking might end up outperforming buffing at level 99, in which case the buff skill again becomes dead weight in the skill inventory after a certain threshold.


Ultimately, as a player, even if they are not consciously cracking hard numbers, it can become pretty apparent whether a buff skill is worth using or not after a few tries. If the player deems a buff as inferior to other actions that the character can take, then this entire preference thing goes out the window because nobody's going to even use the buff skill. Therefore, as a player, I don't think knowing whether the skill is going to buff my attack by 50% or by some incremental value is going to matter to me as much as whether the skill is actually a strategically viable alternative to my other options.


In short, I don't think it really matters HOW you establish a skill to be a viable alternative (be it "hard" static or stackable, in your terms) as long as it ensures that the skill remains viable for the entirety of your game. So just take whichever method is easier to balance on your spreadsheet.

 

[Dark_Metamorphosis]

I prefer option A, as long as the buff-skill in question is useful in some other strategical manner than just adding the buff in question. I have always been a bit neglectful of skills that only has the single purporse of adding a buff, even in games I love.


In some games that uses this, It's countered by the specific class or the use of that character in question. If the character is an all-time healer I feel that most of the time the character is not that useful in any other scenario than when my party needs healing. And if the character or class in question has both healing abilities and damaging abilities I feel that casting a buff with no other single use seems pretty useless most of the time (especially if you have to recast it in order to stack it). It works better on enemies since they are not controlled by the player, but it would most of the time seem unecessary if you have to "waste" so many turns in order to stack it.


I'm fairly sure that both of these could work though, as long as they feel useful and have other purporses added to them. If you are going for Option B for example, rather than having to cast the buff multiple times on the actor, instead you could add an outer source that would help buff the player in some other means. Just for a bad example, let's say that the actor gets the buff for x amount of turns, and in those turns he gets attacked by an enemy increasing his rage, and in the same time stacking the buff that he is buffed with.


I think both can work depending on how they are excecuted, in my own opinion though I think that these kinds of buffs should serve some other purporse or being synced with other conditions that happens in the battle.


Just a note though, I struggle a lot with the battle-mechanics of my game, so you should take my inputs with a grain of salt. But this is my opinion when it comes to states vs damaging abilities, or buffs.

 

[Tai_MT]

I asked this question a while ago elsewhere, but I'd like to ask you guys (and discuss it some more)


Got a question for you guys, and I apologize for not making the premise clearer in the topic; in game making and game player, what do you prefer; a system where buffs applied in battle to base stats are in defined, static increments like States, or a system where buffs applied in battle are a looser, less strict application, like buffs where it's some loose number like 23+ attack, and that buff can be applied and stacked over and over x number of times?

For example, do you prefer

A. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob. ATK UP is a state applied to Bob that raises his attack value by 50%. It wears off in three turns, but cannot be stacked.

B. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob. Bob's ATK is raised by 14. The next turn, Alex casts ATK UP on Bob again. Bob's ATK is raised again by 17. Alex casts ATK UP on Bob again for the next turn, but it has no effect. Bob's ATK boost slowly degrades to its normal value.

This is something that I've always messed around with in game making without a clear consensus (but I personally lean toward the former). Tell me what you think!

Personally, I prefer A.  In my opinion, this method usually results in more interesting player choices in combat and less spam (having seen how Pokémon handles it... I am not a fan of the stacking as it can quickly lead to some broken gameplay or just a lot of turns where you do nothing but buff yourself).  I like my players casting their skill for their buff, that buff lasts a set number of turns, so they have to maximize those turns to best utilize that effect.  I let players stack two separate effects (like two different Attack Up states), but not the same one twice.  I also like percentage increases as buffs instead of strict numbers.  I tend to prefer 25% and 50% as they really only make a difference on certain characters, and typically require some set-up.50% of 100 Attack is 150 Attack.  But 50% of 10 attack is 15 attack.  A flat stat bonus would be useful for maybe low number games... or very early game, but later in game when you're working with hundreds instead of tens...  A flat rate of 12 extra Attack isn't going to make much difference at all.

 

[Feldschlacht IV]

Percentage increases vs. flat number increases is something I didn't really consider, yeah. A big beef I also have with Option B is that the stat boosts, their decay, and the numbers are often unknown to the player and thus really hurts their strategizing. If I get a Buff State that displays ATK +50% that last for 3 turns, that's hard information that I can work with. I know what to do with it, and I know what to expect from it. But with stacking random flat numbers onto a buff, things get way more murky.

 

[Another Fen]

Sorry that this post might be a bit rushed...


I don't think I can give a general answer to this. All in all, I'd probably would like B better, but that would depend on the rest of the battle system.


I don't mind stackable buffs at all, but I find it difficult to design them so that the player will neither try to always use them nor completely ignore them. I could imagine stackable buffs could work great if using them repeatedly comes with some kind of a risk. If you use a threat system for example, enemies could be more likely to attack a character with multiple offensive buffs.


Alternatively, you could make buff casts hard to achieve, for example by giving them a high TP cost. Or - like Dark_Metamorphosis suggested - apply buffs from other sources than skills.


As for flat/percentual numbers, it's probably a matter of preference I think. Percentual bonuses automatically scale according to your groups level and often don't have to be adjusted, but they also scale with equipment and the parameter distribution of a character which you might or might not want them to. They tend to make well developed characters even stronger and are sometimes useless on characters with a poor parameter value.


That said, I don't see why flat numbers couldn't be displayed while percentual bonuses can.


Also, you can design your buffs to be good in most common situations, but they don't necessarily have to compensate for the missed attack damage in order to be useful:


- An otherwise mediocre ATK buff can become great if you combine it with an expensive ability (e.g. Overdrive)


- If you keep using the default damage formula style, ATK buffs become increasingly effective against targets with high DEF (either because the targets are heavy armored or your party is underleveled)


- If your battles have different phases, you can use buffs during low-pressure phases to prepare for the more difficult ones


- If ressources are limited, buffs might allow your characters to use their skills more efficiently

 

[kaukusaki]

It all depends on what numbers you're rolling in your engine to even determine your buff stacking options. In all the games I write, they use different numbers values (to keep things interesting) and I don't like the defaults as it makes for insane values at higher levels to manage for balancing.


in a low-numbers game, stacking/decay makes sense, as percentages would easily lead to extremes (over powered or nerfed). high numbers would do well with percentages, but then balancing can get tricky. anything over 50% is overkill at that point.


I use a variety of skills for my characters. They all have some form of a buff, debuff, attack and defend skill. Depending on what i'm writing, there might be a healing skill thrown in there as well.

 

[Wavelength]

I'm personally a fan of non-stacking buffs in most scenarios for two reasons: it's easier to provide clarity to the player with a single buff, and it's generally not real interesting to use the same buff three times in a row in a battle.  There are times that stacking buffs are cool, such as a skill that gets stronger with each consecutive use - but for a "regular" passive buff I think one application should be enough.


It doesn't need to be a straight percentage like 50% though - a single buff could just as easily increase the ally's stat by an absolute number like 14 or 17.  I'm personally a big fan of utility scaling as well - so for example the # or % that the ATK UP buff increases an ally's Attack power could be based on the Magic Attack of the character that cast the buff.

 

[Saboera]

If you were to go the stacking route, I would suggest tying the buff to other skills as well, in order to avoid spamming the same stuff. It's bad design in general when your battles consist of nothing but using the same things over and over. You want to keep it dynamic and engaging as much as possible.


One idea could be to have a skill ''start'' the buffing process and then add some sort of amplifier effect tied to other skills which does something + increase the effect of the buffs on a target. Another idea could be do have diminishing returns on the stacking, like 100% value on first use, 50% on second, ect.