Some balancing and feature questions

[hian]

So, I've been working my ass off for almost 1.5 years with my main project, and a demo is coming up soon (ignore the project links in my sig, because my main project has been overhauled to the point that the project thread is now completely irrelevant), and so I have a few questions.

As the story, most of my assets and core game-play mechanics are nearing completion, I find myself going back, and tweaking a lot, to make things optimal for a wide variety of players without having to sacrifice too much of the core components that make the game what it is.

So, the following are some balancing aspects and features that I have already implemented, but consider changing or removing based on input from potential players.

1.) Uniform Level Progression system ("no hero left behind")
The entire party levels up uniformly at specific points throughout the game, meaning that even if you don't grind at all, your entire party will still be at a certain stage in terms of stat-development (the bare minimum for making it through the game).

This essentially means that no players will be (unreasonably) punished for not using a particular character they don't like, or for opting out of standard encounters.

Standard encounters only give very little exp, and the general stat progression and leveling is done through the use of consumable items.

This means that you can make the game easier by exploring and grinding, and also make yourself stronger to fight the stronger enemies you find off the beaten path.
You can still clear the game though, by simply going through with the uniform level progression system, although that will require significantly more strategic thinking in battles.


2.) Dualistic skill progression
All party members have one unique skill-tree each, with a small amount of unique skills.
Magic however (general spells, like healing, fire, ice etc) is non-specific, and can be bought or found around the world in limited quantities.

This means that while all characters are unique to a certain degree, their roles in battle can also be customized to a certain degree as well.


3.) Encounter-pass
For each encounter you have (this game uses touch-encounters), you'll be given a consumable item that can be used to skip another encounter.
Technically speaking, if you clear a path going through a dungeon, doing all the encounters, then you can skip all the encounters when you go back.

Dungeons that have been completely cleared can have encounters turned off upon entering the next time - this is to allow players who wish to backtrack for items they might have missed(etc) to save time.


4.) Battle continues
Granted that you have a certain type of consumable item, standard encounters can be re-tried whenever you lose. This is to lessen frustration of players who lose due to a fluke or lack of concentration.
Boss encounters on the other hand, have unlimited re-tries.
Items used in battle will not be given back upon re-try though.


5.) Context Save
Towns, over-world, and cleared dungeons have free save.
New dungeons use save-points, but a limited consumable item can be used to call up the save menu in case of emergencies.

This is to maximize comfort while still retaining a certain amount of tension during dungeon runs.


Summary :

So, I have incorporated these 5 elements to make sure that the game can be played with as little frustration as possible, while still trying to allow for some of the game-play traditions that many people are polarized on like grind vs skill/strategy, static characters vs open characters, save-points vs free save, and so forth.

My hope is that people who like things to be strategic can then enjoy the core of the game without grinding, while those who like grinding and want to feel power-full as the result of long-time efforts can do that too.
Players who enjoy easy access, and smooth play can run through stuff pretty quickly, use continues and encounter pass, and rely on the games journal system to stay on top even if they've gone for a long time without playing.

Those who like to commit for long periods of time, to stay immersed, likes a good challenge etc, can do that too, by not relying on those systems, and going for the side-quests etc.

My fear of course, is that I might have stretched to the game-play out too much, and will just end up alienating everyone instead.

Anyways, what do you guys think? Should anything be scrapped? If you could change something, what would you change and how?
If you like the sound of it the way it is, then by all means, write that too.

Thanks for any and all support!

 

[amerk]

I'd ask what's the point of standard battles when I will get the minimum stats and have as many chances of the boss as I need? In such cases as your idea, just making a story-driven game where the only fights are story-related would probably serve the same purpose.

 

[hian]

I'd ask what's the point of standard battles when I will get the minimum stats and have as many chances of the boss as I need? In such cases as your idea, just making a story-driven game where the only fights are story-related would probably serve the same purpose.

I'm not sure I get your point.Removing all dynamic character growth would ruin all the side content. The reason the system is in place is to allow those who don't care for exploration etc a shot at clearing the game, while providing an incentive and reward to the players who do like to explore etc.

The point is that the minimum stats won't allow you to simply steamroll your way through the game. They'll make it easier for you to balance out or improve your party at any time you please.

My game however, has a lot if side content, and the minimum stats won't be enough for those.

And as I said, retries are only unlimited in boss encounters.

Completely dynamic individual character growth could work, but completely static growth or no growth at all? Nah.

The standard battles allow players to grind the party and thus clear battles with greater ease, and also provide your party with the sufficient stats to challenge the advanced side-quests.

I just don't want to punish casual players who just want to clear the story, by demanding that they grind too.

 

[amerk]

My point is, if you allow players to grow even without battles (albeit minimum) and allow for bosses to be retried until they get it right, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to actually fight standard enemies. You may not be able to steamroll, but it doesn't seem like standard fights pays off that much more than just avoiding them:

Standard encounters only give very little exp, and the general stat progression and leveling is done through the use of consumable items.

If enemies drop a small amount of EXP, how much more of an advantage in growth will the player who fights standard enemies have compared to players who don't fight? Will the player have to fight a long time just to have a significant advantage against those who don't? Do enemies drop good amounts of gold to easily afford these consumable items?

So again, what's the incentive to actually fight standard enemies? If there isn't any, then why have them? Why not just have players do quests for gold and have them buy consumable items?

 

[Tai_MT]

The major problem I'm seeing here is thus:  You're trying to be too many things to too many people.

At some point, you need to come to grips that your game actually needs an identity and shouldn't be trying to be everything to everyone.  I personally enjoy the exploration aspect of RPGs more than any other aspect.  That doesn't keep me from playing games where exploration is minimal (at least, if the other features are pretty good to make up for it).

Here's what you system sounds like to me.  It sounds like you want players to spend most of their time exploring and evading battle.  You have essentially rendered battle, stats, and level ups pointless.  Battles only truly matter when you'd be forced to fight them for story reasons, because you don't get much from defeating any of the enemies to begin with.  Sure, you can wander off the beaten path and beat "tougher" monsters for better experience or loot...  But why?  What's the incentive?  Even if I avoid absolutely everything, you're just going to put me to the proper level I should be anyway.  Plus, since you've just said every fight can be won by doing absolutely nothing other than running forward in the game and letting you level me up instead...  It'd likely just be much faster to get to the Boss, save the game, then try a few strategies to beat that boss.  I mean, you're going to give me everything I need to beat the game without me having to provide any real input into the game anyway.

What's even worse?  The monsters don't drop your "stat progression items", so even those items are rendered absolutely moot in your current system.  You've basically devalued everything your system by trying to hand-hold the players too much and play the game for them.  You're also trying to mitigate age-old problems in RPGs by simply punishing the behavior without incentivizing alternatives.  You're also trying to do too much at once and doing that ensures the experience is mediocre at best for any way a player chooses to play.

I'm not trying to be rude or be down on you... but these are some pretty glaring errors.  You need to decide who you are designing the game to be played by, then cater to them.  Trying to cater to everyone is the fastest way to turn your game into a mess.  No, you don't need to exclusively cater to players who just want to explore the game or to players who just want good combat.  But, you need to decide who you are catering to and build your game around that.  You also need to quit thinking "I need to stop all the standard behaviors of game players".  It's not about stopping the xp grinds that power level characters.  Some people like to do that (I, personally, love to be overleveled) for whatever reason.  What it's about isn't even about mitigating these kinds of behaviors.  It's simply about creating your framework and then letting your players mess around in it.  You just need to find ways to incentivize players to do the opposite of the playstyles you don't want.  You don't need to punish them outright or make their choices seem pointless...  You just need to go, "you see that chest of gold right there?  Yeah, there's a much bigger one over here instead... and it's got better shinies and a gold plated Cod Piece."

I know that I'm an amateur, but the best advice I ever got was "Do not design a game and then add features to it.  Decide what features you want to have and then design your game around that."

Now, you can skip this next part as I'm going to be plugging my own game here a bit as an example (I can only write what I know, after all, and I'm a rank amateur at game design who frequently uses his friends as guinea pigs) on ways I've solved some of the common problems (or at least... tried to work around them).  Levels in my game do not give stats.  This isn't to curb the "power leveling" at all.  This is to curb the obsession with Experience gained in the game and thinking that gaining a level will make you stronger.  Gaining a level in my game, instead, opens up more of the map for you.  Once you reach Level 2 in the game (only 45 Experience Points) you can essentially go to the end of it and beat it.  Reaching Level 2 simply opens up the storyline to a player (it's a small benchmark to ensure the player has at least picked up a few Quests or done some exploring in order to get acquainted with the game and the mechanics).  After Level 2, all that opens up is shortcuts to other areas.  To get to the second village, you need to cross a river, go through a haunted forest, and climb a mountain?  Well, maybe at Level 4, the villagers of the first village grant you use of a flying animal that carries you to the second village and back instead.  Levels open up shortcuts that cut out a lot of the backtracking.  Okay, so how do you gain stats?  Do Quests or open chests.  These stat items can be used on any member of your party (though some Quests can only be obtained through having certain members in your party) so the player can decide how OP they want a single character to be or how balanced they want their party to be.  See?  I've shifted the focus of gameplay to the narrative.  I value the narrative and I want my players to value the narrative (as it's kind of the premise for the game even existing...).  Okay, so what's the incentive to do combat then?  Money and item drops.  Money is fairly valuable and the only way to obtain any kind of healing item (yes, I've removed things like Potions from chests so that you WILL spend your money at item shops).  The incentive to engage in combat in my game is simply for the combat itself.  You get gold, xp, money, items, all that jazz.  But, if you don't want to do random encounters at all, you can simply purchase the first major item I have, which gets rid of random encounters as long as its equipped.

Now, here's my only gripe about your sidequests.  You're saying that you'll need to do all the combat to even have the stats to have a shot at the sidequests and "after the game is over" content.  Well...  If you beat the game without killing the enemies for the extra stats...  You aren't really going to bother with anything after the game.  Especially if it dawns on the player that they now suddenly have to go back and clear out every area they've been through just to be able to attempt it.  The only players who will care about your sidequests are those you are punishing with the limited XP gains which would require massive amounts of grind.  You are promising Cake, GLaDOS, but there is no Cake.  You're providing extra content to players you are telling to screw off.  It's very counter-intuitive design.  If your game is 3 hours long, but I had to grind for 22 hours to even attempt the extra content...  I'm not going to be happy with that extra content unless it's got a pleasure hole in the side to make the work worth the effort.  Get what I'm saying?  Oh, and no, providing "more story" for these players who just had to slog through the grind to even attempt it isn't a good reward.  Especially since Youtube exists.  Easier to let some other poor slob waste his life than to do it ourselves.  Plus, the players who just spent a lot of time gaining levels to do all the extra content after the end of the game aren't the typical players who care about story to begin with.  You're trying to feed celery to lions at that point. 

Okay, I'm done ranting.  Maybe I'm wrong on the whole thing.  I hope I am.  But, honestly, from your description...  It sounds...  Well... frustrating to play.

 

[amerk]

I don't know if it's frustrating so much as the incentive to grind and do the extra content may not outweigh the ability to zip through the game and move on. Maybe that's your intent, Hian, to allow people to push through it with little to no effort. But if you're wanting people to stick around and give it more than a passing glance, you'll definitely want to make the extra content worthwhile. Otherwise, even the most hardcore gamer is going to have trouble choosing to grind for mundane content when they can just skip the battles and fly through the game.

I'm not saying your idea is entirely off, just that what's the point of a side quest that grants me special skills or items if I can push through the game easily enough without those items. In that case, I wouldn't waste time grinding for an item or skill if it's not even necessary to finish the game. But if the side quest opened up a mini game, or extra story content, or something completely impressionable, then it may be worth while.

 

[Tai_MT]

To me, a game is frustrating to play when it has features in it that just aren't implemented well... or punish normal gameplay habits.  I normally gain a few extra levels here and there just to be better prepared for what's coming up so I don't have to stop and grind later when I'm getting into the story.  However, it sounds like his system basically punishes you for stopping to initiate combat at all.  It then further punishes you for not initiating combat (after his first feature promoted not engaging combat) by the player now having to grind out levels and content in order to even tackle anything after the end of the game.  It sounds frustrating because it's basically mixed messages.  Get your hand slapped for being told you can't have a cookie before supper and then getting your hand slapped again because you didn't eat a cookie before supper.

When you send gamers mixed messages about how they should be playing, your game becomes frustrating to play.

 

[hian]

I think both of you are misunderstanding something though -

The regular encounters add small exp amounts to stretch out the leveling because level ups add quite a boost to the stats, and this is in inclusion to stat raise items.

The reason I'm doing this is because my game is ending up being freakishly long for an RPGmaker game, thus that was really the only way I could find to balance out growth with gameplay length.

I don't want players to find themselves playing long stretches of time without any real rewards.

Appart from that, you're putting a lot of words in my mouth -

I never said grind was for end game content or post story content.

One of the main points of my game is it's character driven narrative.

You can play straight through the main storyline and get the bare minimum of story scenes to resolve the plot, or you can explore and get additional story content.

Side quests in my game exist for the sake of branching story lines. You won't have the necessary stats to pull those off without engaging with the regular encounters.

The regular encounters will in any case provide challenges in dungeons, because you won't be able to retry them indefinitely.

If you don't like the story and characters, yes, there is no incentive for exploration, or grind.

But, who would design a game around the assumption that the player isn't going to enjoy the story?

Also, while I'm certain some players will be crafty enough to run through the game using minimum stats, I don't see that as likely for most people, even with boss continues.

The point though, is that I see the benefit of always being able to reconfigure the partly setup without having to spend ages grinding a weak character you didn't use at first up to the point of the rest of the party, as being a great rerliever on general frustration many players have.

I don't think I can even think of a single RPG that hasn't pissed me off at some point for punishing me because I didn't level up some character I never bothered to use for reasons of personal dislike.

Also these aren't features added after design, they're the core elements of the total game balance, so it really is the other way around here.

Your angle doesn't worry much, because the uniform level system is never advertised in game as being sufficient for playthrough, nor will it feel like it is when most people will assuredly get stomped by most of the bosses if they haven't levelled, or know the bosses weak points beforehand.

My worry lies in the effect it has on the players ability to create their own dynamic party. As I said, I'm fluctuating between this system and a completely open stat progression system.

Also, stat progression items are gained from mobs too.

Edit : how exactly does the system punish people for fighting regular encounters?

Regular encounters provide the only option for additional character growth, except exploration.

To break it down using the above playstyle as an example :

A person who does a couple encounters here and there and a medium amount of exploration will be almost exactly were they need to be in order to play the game on a reasonable difficulty.

Those who don't fight or explore will need to rely only on brains - that would be hard.

People who grind will eventually be strong, and they will have an easy time, and additional story to enjoy.

What I meant with small exp growth for regular encounters is for balance. You'll still be able to level a couple of times reasonably at first in a new dungeon. However, if grinding for say 10 levels was doable, pluss the mandatory level raises from the story, would mean that grinders would reach top levels long before the story line is completed, which would be a problem.

Hope things are clearer now.

Also, no, I don't take offense or anything like that. Posted this thread for criticism, so fire away.

 

[Tai_MT]

When you give out low amounts of XP for any standard fight, it's punishing the player.  Let me put it to you this way:

You need 2000 XP to get to level 12 from level 11.  The monsters you are currently fighting are only giving out a paltry 25 XP per kill.  You're now talking 80 monster kills to gain a single level.  Players normally figure that out in their head without a calculator and go "these monsters aren't worth fighting because they don't give much XP.  I'll move forward into the game until I find something a bit more reasonable to fight for a higher XP reward".  Ever played Final Fantasy 6?  There's an enemy called a "Leafer".  After you reach something like level 10, it's no longer worth killing or taking the time to kill because of it's paltry XP and almost non-existent GP.  It's one of the weakest enemies in the game and it's freakin' everywhere until you get to the halfway point of the game.  It doesn't even have a good "steal table" to make it worth fighting for anything you could nick from it.

If I, as a player, have to fight 80 enemies to gain a single level in a game, I'm going to ignore as much of the combat as possible because later on enemies will offer more XP than what you're currently offering.  Let's also be clear on one thing...  If a game has "grind" in it, it's a punishment to a player.  Very few people in the world actually enjoy grind.  Grind sucks.  It's a huge time sink for very little rewards.  Grind should always be optional to all the content of a game, otherwise a lot of players will stop short because the grind exists.  Standard Level Up systems have always avoided grind by giving you enough XP to blaze through the levels you were meant to blaze through and then when you require more and more XP to gain a level, turning the simple act of "gaining a few levels" into a grind, so that most players will stop doing it.  Players will grind for XPs only as long as it doesn't seem like much of a grind and it seems like they're making decent progress doing it.  If it seems like it'll be a long and drawn out affair, they'll simply not do it.  It's basic human behavior.  If your reward is a Level Up, and that reward takes too long to obtain, the player isn't going to be interested in trying to obtain it by using up a lot of their time. 

 

[amerk]

Fair enough, Hian, that's a bit more clearer, but the initial post didn't make that clear:

Standard encounters only give very little exp, and the general stat progression and leveling is done through the use of consumable items.

This means that you can make the game easier by exploring and grinding, and also make yourself stronger to fight the stronger enemies you find off the beaten path.
You can still clear the game though, by simply going through with the uniform level progression system, although that will require significantly more strategic thinking in battles.
 

That made it sound as if encounters didn't offer very much EXP, nor did it give you much advantage in stats, since they come from consumable items instead, and that the player would have to grind to get anywhere. Mind you, minimal grinding is fine, but if you're talking like hours of grinding, that's a different matter. As Tai_MT pointed out, it really depends on how much you need to grind.

Rather than looking at small EXP versus large, look at EXP in relation to leveling up. There's really no set rule. I'm fine with small EXP as long as the time to fight monsters for a level up remains relatively the same as if it were large EXP. For example, one game may have you fight monsters that drop 3 EXP points to level up, with a level up that occurs around the 20 EXP mark. You'll fight anywhere from 1 to 2 monsters, meaning that the level up would occur somewhere after 3 to 6 battles. Or you could have monsters that drop 30 EXP, with a level up somewhere around the 200 EXP mark. Same thing, a level up will occur somewhere after 3 to 6 battles.

Or monsters drop enough gold to make the consumable items worthwhile.

Naturally, the higher your level, the more battles it will take, until you go somewhere with harder enemies to balance out the grind again with higher EXP. However, I would still reward the player who grinds by also giving them a boost in stats at various areas. The reason I say this is because:

A. Player 1 decides not to fight enemies. He comes to the end of the dungeon and is given a minimal boost in stats.

B. Player 2 decides to grind a bit. He comes to the end of the dungeon but doesn't get a boost at all, because he's slightly above the minimum.

Even though Player 2 is still above the minimum compared to Player 1, Player 2 gets no incentive for actually playing the game, even though it probably took him much longer to complete the dungeon. If you're going to give a boost to Player 1 for being lazy, you should also give a similar boost to Player 2.

Anyways, that's my thoughts on that. It's much clearer, now, and I think it can work. Personally, I would just scrap EXP altogether in this case and have players grind for gold so they can buy consumable items. That way the player can build their own characters stats based on what they think should be higher or lower, but that's probably another topic completely.

Players will grind for XPs only as long as it doesn't seem like much of a grind and it seems like they're making decent progress doing it.  If it seems like it'll be a long and drawn out affair, they'll simply not do it.  It's basic human behavior.  If your reward is a Level Up, and that reward takes too long to obtain, the player isn't going to be interested in trying to obtain it by using up a lot of their time. 

I recently am trying the first Dragon Quest game again for the NES, and holy monkeys if that game wasn't grind heavy. Every new town seems like you have to grind for about 2+ hours just to get enough levels and gold to buy the new equipment to tackle the next dungeon. It's easily a 2 or 3 hour game, but add the grind to it and it's taking me somewhere around the 10 hour mark, and I'm only about 1/2 way done with it.

 

[hian]

Well, I get the point, but I don't really agree with the view that grind necessarily is a punishment. This ignores a very large demographic of players who actually enjoys grinding. Not only do I know many players who enjoy grind, I've even seen many people on the forum who have stated explicitly that they enjoy grinding.

The way I've set it up, you don't necessarily have to grind at all, if that's not your cup of tea.

Your party will always have the minimum stats needed for story related encounters if you take the time to learn enemy attack patterns and weaknesses, but it will still be hard, and probably require multiple attempts.

Clearing a dungeon of mobs, or doing a "normal amount" of mobs on a first run will usually afford your chosen member 1-3 levels which will make boss encounters much more reasonable.

You won't get annihilated just for forgetting to heal on one turn for example.

With the minimum stats, you run the risk of getting screwed very badly for missing the boss attack pattern once or twice.

This way grind is purely optional, and thus I can't see how it punishes anyone. It's only there as a caveat for those who like to grind. However, knowing so many people who do like to grind I felt compelled to provide a game-structure that allows for and rewards those who do.

The uniform level system, and encounter pass system exists to allow people to not be punished for not wanting to grind, or not wanting to fight except when necessary.

The way I see it, from experience, this forum, and indeed the RPGmaker playing community in general are very divided between fans of narratively driven games, and your standard character progression focused games. I don't believe that the two types cannot both be incorporated into one game.

The problem though lies in different people's concept of difficulty.

Some people think battle continues cheapen the game(as one of you said above), while many others would say that it doesn't. After all, all games with a save function essentially has unlimited continues. The only difference lies in time. Should you really punish players by forcing them to load and waste time doing loads of things they already know how to do, to get to the point were they died? You're wasting the players time.

Some people see time spent, or time invested, as a factor for creating satisfaction, sense of achievement, or sense of danger and stress. Others think time should be largely irrelevant because time as gameplay factor will always punish player that can't afford to dedicate large chunks of time to gaming, and alienate those who just can't be bothered.

However, again, in my experience, most of the RPG playing community is pretty split on this.

I see it all the time, whether in discussions on save points vs free save, or drop rates, stat progress balancing.

What I'm trying to do, is to allow players to play according to their own needs.

I want the grinding crowd to feel like they can, and that there is a point to doing it, while allowing those who don't to be able to play through without feeling like they're being punished for not spending ages fighting random mobs when they'd rather be progressing the plot.

Edit :

Last time I played through the first dungeon in my game, I forgot one central item I wanted for my female tank character, and didn't remember it until much later. Backtracking felt great though since I didn't have to worry about wasting time fighting already lower levelled enemies. Then going back to the new dungeon, I chose to fight a bit to level a character I hadn't used up until that point because my new build for the tank required a support character. Thankfully, I only had to level that character twice to feel confident that I had the right beef to deal with the boss without retries.

I'm doing to runs of the first build of the game now - one optimal run, with all the best skills and equips, and one base run with only the basic stuff.

So far the system seems to work very well, but as I said, if you want to go outside the box with your character build, you're going to have to compensate somewhat by doing a bit more fighting.

Edit :

Also, I might be mistaken but I get the impression you got the impression that only underlevelled characters and people who don't grind are pulled up by the level system, but that's wrong.

Think of it like this - whenever you clear a dungeon or important area, your entire party gains a level, regardless of whether they participated in battles or not. These level gains should suffice to keep the party afloat throughout the game. All other leveling is additional.

 

[amerk]

I think when most people say they're okay with grind, they mean at a minimum, as in, they're okay with having to fight what they see as they explore, as long as the time between encounters is reasonable (ie., 25+ steps versus every 3 to 5 steps, but they don't want to have to sit around in circles for an hour just to get anywhere, either.

You're also again emphasizing my earlier point, that not fighting will net you a minimum number of stats anyways to at least get through the basic portions of the game (but probably not the side quests), and if you fight and grind, you probably won't be rewarded with a boost in stats because you'll already be above that minimum. Even though the boss encounters may be challenging to somebody with minimal stats, the player can save right before the boss and just try out various strategies until they find one that works, and still save more time playing that game than somebody who stops to grind along the way.

The only incentive I see for grinding in this game would be the side quests. Those side quests need to be very rewarding to encourage the player to take them on, otherwise most players may not feel the need to spend extra time in the game when they can push through it (regardless of their love for grind or not).

 

[whitesphere]

Personally, I don't like too much grinding for the sake of grinding, but some games I love, like Dragon Quest IX and Final Fantasy III require a LOT of grinding.     But, if there isn't enough grinding required for each level, each level doesn't seem to mean much ("Oh, I just went up to level 12.  It took me 2 battles.").

I consider a reasonable grind to be around 5 minutes per level for low levels, with up to 30 minutes, or longer, per level for higher levels.

What I prefer to do is give players a choice, with a variety of enemies.  There are always some high risk and high reward enemies, and a larger collection of lower risk/reward enemies.    And I like to have risky power grinding areas which are great to power level up fast, if you want to risk frequent party death.

For example, I have a Thieve's Guild, where your party is ambushed by, well, thieves as random encounters.  These are fairly dangerous enemies but offer a lot of XP and gold each time, so you have a high risk-reward component.    Outside the Guild are reasonably strong enemies which aren't nearly as hard, but which offer a lot less XP.  

Of course, I expect a much higher level party to take longer to gain levels, since the really high levels shouldn't be too easy to attain.  To me, a very high level should be rare.  And, that's the place to put the best skills/spells/etc to reward the really persistent players.

 

[hian]

Where do you(amerk) get the idea that grinders won't receive stat boosts? Of course they will, because they'll level up in addition to the party level.

The point is that those who like to grind won't need that much of an incentive - after all, they enjoy grind. You're looking at this from the perspective of "nobody really likes to grind" which IMO is patently false.

I've heard many people, even on these forums, say explicitly they enjoy spending time chipping away at difficult drop rates and random encounters because the time it takes to achieve is what gives them the sense of achievement in the first place.

Again, no antigrind players will suffer anything from this gameplay mechanic. It only creates an additional means of play for those who wish to grind.

And even when I'm using the term grind, don't for a second I'm talking Korean MMORPG level grind - I'm talking grind that can be cleared if you're willing to spend some 20-30 minutes extra time when clearing dungeons.

However, I know that even that can be off-putting to some people, which is why this isn't mandatory.

 

[amerk]

Okay, so they do get the party boosts as well. Was not clear on that.

As for grinders, let's agree to disagree. Most rpg's will either require grind, but some do not. I play both types. In games where it's required, assuming it's a reasonable amount of grind, I don't mind. But if presented with both options (grind or not), together in the same game, I'm going to take the path of least resistance, assuming I can still play through the game without too much difficulty. Not because I hate grinding, but simply because the easier option is there. I personally think most players are going to feel the same way. Unless your boss fights are still insanely difficult at minimum stats, or your side quests offer a hefty value, there may not be much incentive to encourage grinding, even from those who enjoy it.

That's not to discourage you from making your game the way you want to. Just be prepared for more than the usual number of people who will take the easiest path, regardless of their likes or dislikes, so they don't have to spend more time than needed in your game world. If you're goal is to encourage people to take the time and grind and play through your side quests, you'll have your work cut out for you by making those side quests enjoyable and worthwhile.

For me, it's things like extended story, optional story content (especially if it fits the background of one of my main characters), unlocking a really cool secret area, building new towns, recruiting for the newly built town, mini games, etc. There could even be a promotional gimick, for digital commercial games, where if a player masters a tough side quest, they get a special promo offer for a discount on a future game.

As long as the side quests scream out a need to be played, then it'll encourage people to spend a bit more time in your game, grinding if needed, and tackling the additional content.

 

[hian]

I know that most people will take the easy path and expect them to. I just want to create an option for people who don't like easy paths.

That's essentially why I felt FF10 and later games failed so on the exploration aspect.

It's like they knew that many casual players would just run through the game, so they designed it like a straight path. This to me, is the worst sin of game design. You could easily have a larger, more open ended world and just have a minimap and checkpoints to help casuals. This way you could satisfy two demographics, instead they alienated one to make way for another despite not really needing to most likely because they were lazy.

As for my game,

almost all the side-content is story related though.

Seeing as the story follows a band of mercenaries in a world at war, there really is so much room for character development that can be interesting, yet unrelated to the overarching conflict.

One of the gameplay features is strategic army combat, so a lot of side content is dedicated to solving minor military conflicts, recruiting new soldiers etc.

I'm also considering making an MP3 complete soundtrack RAR-file, and additional artwork unlockable for people who get a high rank clear of the game.

 

[Tai_MT]

In my experience, I've discovered that the players "who love grind" are the players who don't have jobs, families, or very much in terms of social lives.  When you grow up, move out, and have bills to pay as well as responsibilities...  Grind is a massive punishment on the very tiny schedule you have for playing games.

I used to love grind too, back when I was younger.  I played Runescape and got a lot of stats at least to 60 or 70 (which is equivalent to grinding away years of your life).  I don't enjoy the game very much anymore because you're talking 6 hour investment times to gain one or two levels.  You're talking 2 hour investment times for most Quests (despite how simple most of them actually are).  Grind stops being fun when you can afford to buy your own games and have an actual life to go back to.  When you've got shelves upon shelves of uncompleted games like I do, the less grind, the better.  When you only have 2 hours in a weekday to maybe play some video games because you have household chores and supper to make as well as dishes to do, you don't want that 2 hours to be grind.  When your entire weekend is the only real time you have to dedicate to an actual video game (like maybe to beat it), you don't want to waste it on grind.

Grind, like getting drunk, is for those with nothing better to do.  That's not to say it's bad to enjoy grind...  It's just that, the people who enjoy grind now don't really have adult responsibilities or schedules.  Their minds will likely change once they do have those things.

As an adult, grind is punishment of the worst kind.  I just simply have better things to do with my time than waste it grinding.  There are a lot of adults who feel that way.  Then, you also have the players who (rightfully) see grind as little more than padding in the game to keep people playing it longer than it actually is.  As mentioned above with Dragon Quest, a lot of early NES games adopted the "grind a crapload" design to keep players interested in their games and playing it for long periods of time so as to give the illusion of "getting your money's worth".  Such a design method also meant you could kind of skimp on story (notice how MMOs are full of grind and all have nearly non-existent stories and unimaginative worlds with terrain?  Entire landscapes filled with almost nothing, save for a few houses to give you quests?  What you're seeing is that design philosophy in action with modern games.  It's there to pad out the content of your game when it doesn't really have much content.  Rare loot drops that require you to grind dungeons for years?  Same concept.  Grind to artificially extend playtime to make up for actual lack of content) or other such features because the players would be more interested in gaining that next level or getting enough gold for that shiny new sword.  Ever play Final Fantasy 1 on NES?  Grindtastic game.  The game will actually run you about 6 hours total to play and beat it...  If you don't have to stop and grind (as the remake on the Advance proves since they nixed all the grinding in the game with the remake, as well as the Magic limitations).  Most game files of that game will run you 20 to 30 hours just because of all the grind involved.

As a kid, I didn't consider grind "bad" or even a punishment.  As an adult, I see it as poor design and a punishment to the player.

 

[hian]

That I can agree with a lot. That being said though, many adults never grow out of grinding.

A large portion of MMORPGs involve ridiculous amounts of grind, yet have large adult followings.

I personally don't like grinding in general. The only games were grinding has been fun to me is the FF games, and that's just because I'm so involved in the story that I want to overpower my characters for the sake of thrashing the villains which I usually have a strong dislike for.

There's this strange satisfaction in hitting Seymour's smug face with a damage break 20.000 dmg hit sword attack while mentally shouting "f*** you" in FFX.

Or going, "you think you're special? Here's a knights of the round for you", and blasting Sephiroth into oblivion in FF7.

Generally though, grind and resource farming etc has little to no appeal to me. That's the reason I could never get into games like Monster Hunter.

 

[Zakreyus]

You know, from a rookie dev's point of view, I think it's really your JOB in this whole endeavour to make balancing an issue before you even start your game - hell it's almost as important as the story. If the game is unplayable no one will bother with the story.

If I were to read the Steam features of the game, I would not buy or download this one. As much as you are trying to sell your idea to us, I'd still have major concerns - which have been stated already in this thread. Your levelling system just sounds like a royal mess, there are easier ways to go about this. If you want to give the player a minimum level but not have them overpowered, hand craft your levelling system using eventing. I find it a much easier way to control player growth. It sounds like all you tried to do was make levels few nd far between with big benefits - like, really? You should have been able to see this was a bad idea. As you mentioned , hitting seymour in the face with a damage limit break is fun - so why not take another FF cue - incremental levels. I love the sphere grid, and its wht i based my leveling system on.

Story is great if you have a game to play in, but this balancing thing is a huge part of the game as well. Having played WoW, I know where a grind is fun, and where it is not. I quit when I got to level 70 - and i hear the last levels now take a godawful amount of time to get to. Tht being said, I understand there are tonnes of people who enjoy WoW to those levels and beyond.

Now there's something you need to understand - WoW is a pay to play game that depends on lengthening the experience to make more money. Your game will be a one time buy thing - who really wants to play single player world of warcraft? The whole experience is based around that interplayer interaction, which makes the grindy gameplay more than bearable for the most part.

As another member has already stated, you arent going to please everyone, and if you try you are most likely going to just create a mediocre experience. You really gotta decided what you want your game to be and stick with it, rather than try to make it everything at once. If I gotta fight for hours to get my exploration fix Im going to be pretty meh.

 

[amerk]

Shifting the focus away from your leveling since it seems to have been discussed too death. Your other ideas are pretty noble and spot on, and reviewing them again makes me realize you don't even need to worry about minimum party boosts, etc. You have a fairly sound idea for skipping enemy encounters and use of save points, so I'd build on that.

The encounter pass already lets you skip every other battle, so why not just tailor your boss fights for half the combat? That way, your casual players still fight some things, and by fighting half of what's there they would be somewhat prepared for the end boss, although it may be a lot more challenging. The more hardcore players will be able to fight everything and grind a bit more, and the dedicated players will have the incentive to turn off encounters when they revisit a completed dungeon for extra loot.

Allow players the option to sell off their encounter pass items for some decent change; maybe the harder the enemy the better the cost of selling the pass. That way, players who decide to not use the pass and fight most of what's there have an extra incentive for their time. They can sell the passes they don't want to use for a decent gold boost, and then have the funds to buy more consumable stat upgrades, allowing them to breeze through later sections or side quests.

Most players of an rpg, even casual ones, will realize there will be combat of sorts. Giving them the encounter passes seems like it does what it needs to do to allow them to go through the game without spending too much time fighting, but still requires a small amount of fighting. It's similar to what the later Wild Arms games do.