Parameter curves, balancing, etc. How do *YOU* balance your stats?

[RetroNutcase]

So, idly working on a spreadsheet of potential stat distributions for classes, this discussion idea came up. I'm curious how others handle the stat curves on their characters/classes when trying to balance things out. Myself, I'm going with a sort of 'point' system right now, using the A-E letters from the curve generator. The idea in this point system is that A=5 points, B is 4, C is 3, D is 2, E is 1. From there, ideally I want to have the total points be the same between classes. IE, make sure for every weak stat, there's a good stat to balance it out, without any class being better than the rest in all stats.

EDIT: Wow, spreadsheets don't paste nicely here. I'll have to try and make something readable later. Still need to know how to make a spoiler tag though. ^^;

I'm curious, does anyone else have a mindset like this when trying to come up with stat distributions? Am I overthinking the whole idea by trying to balance numbers/stats so no class has too much of an advantage over others? (And yeah, I realize Mage is kinda lacking in this example table. Sage and Warlock are intentionally weaker in most areas, it's a jack of all trades master of none type penalty). Do most people just hit the curve generate buttons randomly and call it a day?

 

[Vox Novus]

For spoilers you use [put the word spoiler here]Put text/images, whatever here[put the word /spoiler here]

As for the topic; I start with my main character/starting characters as a base. Stat growth is done not on a curve at all but rather a consistent growth per level. So every level the actor gets the same atk boost, same def, boost, same hp growth. When looking at new actors I try to vary it slightly from my initial actors parameters. So if my main actor is the heavy damage dealer every other actor should have slightly less atk than him with respect to their role in battle. A secondary physical damage dealer will be much closer to the initial actors atk parameter than say the mage/healing characters who don't focus on using the atk stat.

I should mention I also like to make use of relatively smaller numbers.

 

[Milennin]

I don't think every character needs to be super equal when it comes to stats, even though I do balance my game's character around a similar system. A character with lower stats, for example, could have more powerful skills or equips to make up for it.

 

[bgillisp]

What I did was decide on what my 'base' stat was for each stat to start out with, and to finish with. Then, I set all my classes around that.

For example, in my game, right now for starting characters, a stat of 15 is bad, 20 is average, and 25 is great. Then I set all numbers around that. Then, I did the same thing for level 99, and had the curve then give most characters linear growth.

Though, in most RPGMaker games, I find most people don't get past level 35 (My record is 38 in Tale of a Common Man, without EXP gaining items), so maybe it would be best to set the curve for level 1 and level 35 (or whatever  your max level is), and extrapolate past 30 in case someone overlevels?

 

[Kes]

In theory I agree with bgillisp on where to draw the curve.  The trouble is that we, as developers, know our games inside out.  We know the fastest routes, the most efficient order to do things in and the best strategies for all the enemies.  We will, therefore, inevitably get through faster and at lower levels than the average player.  I'd say myself that if I finished on level 38, I'd have to assume level 45 - 50 as the cut off point for calculating.

 

[bgillisp]

@ksjp17: The reason I suggested our level is because we will be lower level, and it will benefit the player more. Besides, most times the difference is 4 - 6 points (unless you do crazy powering up at level up), and the player will be a little more powerful than us then.

Of course, I did mine with lvl 99 as the cutoff initially. Though I might revisit this once the entire game is done and I know what level the average player will be at the end.

 

[Wavelength]

Generally what I do is I just think for a while about the battle system, run some sample scenarios, and then come up with a rough conversion for how much of one stat is worth how much of another stat (for example +1 ATK is "worth" +2 AGI, and +1 DEF is worth +2 ATK).  Then I create my characters to have strengths and weaknesses while maintaining the same equivalent "value" of their total stats.

After doing this, I create my enemies, and playtest battles with different party levels to make sure that the expected "best case", "worst case", and "average case" feel about right.  If they don't, I change the enemy stats rather than the player stats.  However, if some characters are decimating enemies whereas others are struggling to contribute to the party, I will re-think the "equivalence" of stats based on this empirical evidence (maybe +1 ATK was really only worth +1.5 AGI) and redo the extremely strong/weak characters' stats based on this new equivalence.

This is a fairly simple way of balancing characters and enemies, because it basically assumes single battles where you go all-out rather than long slogs through dungeons.  My games so far have fostered this style of play.  However, in a game where enemies are expected to "chip away" at your party throughout a dungeon, different balancing mechanisms need to be used (characters that can spend a large amount of mana to wipe out a weak enemy party in one hit still might be less useful than a tanky character that can heal himself or others for a small cost in such a system).

One tangentially-related tip that I've mentioned in a few places before: I find LoL-style "percentage" damage reductions rather than "absolute" reductions to lead to much more forgiving decisions when balancing stats.  I use formulas like (a.atk * 200) / (b.def + 50) rather than (a.atk * 30) - (b.def * 15) and it means that if I slightly misjudge how powerful the party will be at a given point, the battles will still usually be somewhat exciting, rather than mind-numbingly easy or frustratingly difficult.

 

[Ramiro]

I remeber defeating golden sun at lvl 29 and all djinn, wich people say to me that is not "normal" because the bonus connet is brutal at that level.

But as an stat upgrade system, I choose the paper mario style, just upgrade life or energy or other things, but keep them low and upgrade your equipment.

Fire emblem style of "random upgrades" add a good twist to the formula too, but I won't use them on normal rpg with limited units.

I like to calculate easy things like "if I do 20 damage per hit, and the enemy has 50, in three turns should be done" it is possible when numbers are big (like 1293892389238923 vs 2193829389384934839) but a bit... harder to do