# State resistance based on number of turns or effect magnitude instead of chance

#### DoubleX

##### Just a nameless weakling
In the default RMVXA and RMMV(I don't know if it's the same for the others as well), the state resistance's in the form of decreasing the chance to inflict a state, but without any other change if the state's still inflicted.
I personally feel that it can be excessively and unnecessarily random, especially for states lasting for several turns and with serious effects.
Therefore, my very naive idea is that, instead setting the state resistance as decreasing the chance to inflict a state, the former should be set as decreasing the number of turns of the inflict state, thus eliminating the randomness completely.

Let's say a state reducing a battler's atk by 50% for 3 turns, which is of course a very serious deal.
But there are some battlers having certain resistance on that state, some may reduce the number of turns to 2, and some may even reduce the number of turns to 1, thus removing the situation of a gamble between having no effect and reducing atk by 50% for 3 turns.

Similarly, state resistance can also be implemented as reducing the state effect magnitude, and in the above case, like reducing it to 25% from 50%.

So what do you think about state resistance? Do you prefer randomness or determinism in this case?

#### Wavelength

##### MSD Strong
I mostly agree that your ideas are good here, as I think it's almost never good to use RNG mechanics that can completely no-sell actions.

But I think you're looking at a symptom (the binary, often random nature of state resistance effects) of what is a much larger and very similar problem (the binary, often random nature of state application itself).

Unless you're using 100% State Application chance for each state as a baseline (or doing something very creative that eschews the RNG altogether), then the application of States will always be highly and unsatisfyingly random. Even if you're using a more moderate and deterministic (non-random) effect for the State Resistance effect, it's not like a 50% chance to apply a half-strength debuff is that much less random than a 25% chance to apply a full-strength debuff.

Changing the magnitude and/or duration of states based on the target's State Resistance is essentially a form of Utility Scaling, except using the Skill's "reliability" (chance to inflict the state) instead of the caster's stats. Since this would require a plugin (in RPG Maker, or a built-from-scratch system in any other engine) to implement, I would say lean all the way into the Utility Scaling approach and make that how you implement every state in your game.

So if before, two different skills would have inflicted a long-lasting Silence at 30% chance and 60% chance, then instead have them inflict a short-duration Silence and a medium-duration Silence at 100% reliability, respectively. As in your suggestion, having some State Resistance would lower the duration of it. You can even consider the user's (and perhaps the target's) stats into the calculation as well, to avoid the design problem that most games have where a user's offensive power becomes completely irrelevant for status-inflicting skills.

#### CraneSoft

##### Filthy Degenerate
I'd say your idea itself is not bad on paper, if I completely disregard the technical difficulties and the extra workload/balancing issues that may arise. Whether it will WORK however, is another story altogether. States are something akin to a high risk, high reward deal - and that is the whole charm about them, if the element of randomness is removed altogether and their overall effectiveness reduced, it will result in 2 scenarios:

1) They become subpar options that isn't even worth using / or become completely useless in the long run, which defeats the purpose of giving them 100% accuracy against foes that resists them.

2) For the case of some serious states that can easily break combat balance (such as massive ATK/DEF down, Paralysis/Stun/Silence/Blind), they become insanely broken and are STILL worth using even if they last only a single turn because the player now have permanent reliability.

Now for scenario 2, it is possible to circumvent it by giving the state-inducing skills cooldowns to prevent spamming, but even so you may inadvertantly create situations which will lead to same conclusion as scenario 1.

Overall, as someone who hates RNG, personally I think state randomness is the one, and only, acceptable randomness in a turn-based RPG, though I'd prefer to give the player options to reduce that randomness instead of removing it altogether.

Last edited:

#### TheoAllen

##### Self-proclaimed jack of all trades
As CraneSoft said, it needs a context to see if it could be used properly. I would love to try the idea, however, I haven't seen a design that fits with this. My game does not need this. As an example, the difference of a turn is a deal-breaker. One less turn, the state may not feel worth it. One more turn, the state could feel it's broken. Because one turn means a lot. Sometimes you spend a turn to recover yourself and prepare for the next turn, then the state wore off. Bummer...

Magnitude scaling may be a better option as you could still utilize the debuff within the fixed turn. However, it may create an inconsistency of the value. Not to mention, you need to deliver that information to the player which another whole story on its own. For the sake of simplicity, it is better to just use the same value and not making the debuff magnitude too powerful to make the whole game feels trivial. But at least it has consistency.

The state scaling, however, works better in Real-time Action in which a few more/less second means something than turns in which may has a greater effect. For turn-based, I prefer something I could control to make it better. Maybe, an additional state that increases the state accuracy so it may have a better chance to land. Maybe a skill to extends all debuff by one turn or increase their magnitude so you spend a turn to make the debuff even deadlier.

#### Frostorm

##### []D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
Since this would require a plugin (in RPG Maker, or a built-from-scratch system in any other engine) to implement, I would say lean all the way into the Utility Scaling approach and make that how you implement every state in your game.
While it would require a plugin, I don't think it would require anything beyond YEP_BuffStatesCore, which is a popular and commonly used plugin as it is. Here's one way to do it:
JavaScript:
``````<Custom State X Turns>
turn = Math.round(10 * target.stateRate(stateId));
</Custom State X Turns>``````
Of course, you'd want to change the coefficient (10) to fit your game. But yea, super easy to implement! I do want to note that this method uses the target's State Rate (their resistance/susceptibility to the state) instead of the skill's chance to apply the state since I would just set that to 100% 1000% in every case for such a game. Using the target's state rate instead of the caster's skill's state rate allows for the duration to vary from enemy to enemy. Idk if this still falls under Utility Scaling, as in the case of the caster's skill's state rate method, but this seems to fall more in line with what OP was suggesting.

Edit 100% -> 1000%

Last edited:

#### YoraeRasante

##### Veteran
As Cranesoft said, states are a high risk - high reward gamble. And for the stronger states the fact it is a gamble is important, it is a big part of the balancing. So I do not think an 100% state application would be that good an idea.

I myself like the idea of mixing chance with Monster Hunter's method.
In MH, each monster has a resistance to each state, and adding the state actually lowers that resistance, the state itself is added for sure when it goes to 0. As in the OP's idea, the more resistant the less it stays, and after recovering the resistance is now higher.
But MH are action rpgs, not turn-based. This idea would be too slow for most battles. So instead I'd suggest the skills having a chance, and if not added it lowers the resistance, making it easier to be applied until eventually reaching 100%. And of course, the stronger states are much more resistant to this lowering.

#### Frostorm

##### []D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
As Cranesoft said, states are a high risk - high reward gamble. And for the stronger states the fact it is a gamble is important, it is a big part of the balancing. So I do not think an 100% state application would be that good an idea.
It really depends on the type of game. As someone developing a Tactical RPG, I'd rather depend less on RNG in general. Tacticals are all about planning your move, and if the move you planned fails to execute, well the player is left feeling pretty crummy, cuz now their entire strategy goes awry. That's not to say I use 100% everywhere, in fact, similar to but different from the Monster Hunter example, I have certain skills, such as those that apply Burn, for example, have a 25% chance to inflict the Burning state. However, stuff like Tar (a state applied by Earth spells) would increase that chance by 400%, guaranteeing the effect. Similarly, using a spell that can Burn on an already Burning target is also guaranteed to inflict the state (increasing its duration). The idea is, I don't want players to ever have to continuously attempt to apply a state. Any 2 step setup should be able to guarantee inflicting the state.

Edit: Another use case for OP's mechanic would be to set the player's actors state rate for beneficial states to something above 100%, thus increasing the duration of said buffs. This is probably one of the better uses imo, since beneficial states are usually 100% anyways. However, I would set it to 1000% so that certain actors can have a state rate of less than 100% (but >10%) for certain states.

Last edited:

#### DoubleX

##### Just a nameless weakling
Let's throw out 1 more example: hp/mp sap(poison) states in an ATB system, where something like 100hp/mp is reduced per second and the state turn will also be reduced per second(of course, the second's combined by all ATB frame updates, so time spent on inputting actions with the full wait ATB mode doesn't count).
In this case, maybe it makes sense for such a state resistance to be based on turns, so battlers having that state may have its turn reduced to say, 30 from 60.
Of course, reducing the magnitude from 100 to 50 as a form of state resistance might also work well here

#### Icenick

##### Veteran
As Cranesoft said, states are a high risk - high reward gamble. And for the stronger states the fact it is a gamble is important, it is a big part of the balancing. So I do not think an 100% state application would be that good an idea.

I myself like the idea of mixing chance with Monster Hunter's method.
In MH, each monster has a resistance to each state, and adding the state actually lowers that resistance, the state itself is added for sure when it goes to 0. As in the OP's idea, the more resistant the less it stays, and after recovering the resistance is now higher.
But MH are action rpgs, not turn-based. This idea would be too slow for most battles. So instead I'd suggest the skills having a chance, and if not added it lowers the resistance, making it easier to be applied until eventually reaching 100%. And of course, the stronger states are much more resistant to this lowering.

Darkest Dungeon IMO does this the best, balanced and fair RNG. States are based on chance but exceed 100%, additionally enemies had different resistance to states.
EX: Undead always had 200% resistance to bleed because well they don't bleed.
Then the most important aspect is that once you land a state, any state, the enemy would gain a buff to that state in the form of resistance for 2 turns.
Combat would play like this;
-Your warrior has 175% chance to stun, you equip all the gear to make him your stun lock defender. -You hit a slime with a 25% chance to resist stun, 175-25 = 150% chance to stun slime. The stun always happens.
-Slime misses his next action and gains a temporary 100% to resist for 2 turns, the resist is now 125%
-Warrior goes for stun again 175-125 = 50%, which will always stun half the time, RNG is a choice now given to the players, listen you landed your stun, you tempting fate if you want to try it again on this enemy, take the chance or target another enemy.
-If you take the dice roll and Slime is stunned again, they gain an additional 100% resistance for 2 turns but still has the 100 from last turn. They now have 225% resistance for the next attack, after would drop 125% for the next turn, finally back to 25%.
-At 225 resistance vs 175 a stun will never happen obviously.

A few things to note;
All info is visible there is no guess work. Your skills tell you the % and you can see enemies resist.
Characters who should be doing certain states keep their theme, a rogue has at least a skill that will almost always inflict PSN.
Finally builds matter, it adds an aspect of finding and matching skills and items to specialise in inflicting some states over others. Unique playtroughs can happen. Maybe you want a team heavy in stun but your healer not to be specialised, so you stun with healer first then make your warrior try to stun lock the enemy as much as you can.

#### Frostorm

##### []D[][]V[][]D aka "Staf00"
@Icepick I like systems like that, however for it to work in RPG Maker you'll have to change this: (rpg_objects.js)
`Game_BattlerBase.prototype.stateRate = function(stateId) {`
` return this.traitsPi(Game_BattlerBase.TRAIT_STATE_RATE, stateId);`
`};`
to this:
`Game_BattlerBase.prototype.stateRate = function(stateId) {`
` return this.traitsSum(Game_BattlerBase.TRAIT_STATE_RATE, stateId);`
`};`

Then you'll need to add 100% to the state rate (for all states) of all actors/enemies so they start at "1" instead of "0".

Last edited:

#### Wavelength

##### MSD Strong
As Cranesoft said, states are a high risk - high reward gamble. And for the stronger states the fact it is a gamble is important, it is a big part of the balancing. So I do not think an 100% state application would be that good an idea.
Like @Frostorm said, it really depends on the game - it doesn't have to be that way (and in fact I think it's generally better gameplay when it isn't that way). It's perfectly fine for states to have no RNG risk (the only real risk is the fact that you spent a turn applying it!), and moderate reward. Essentially, it means the player opted into gaining utility that turn, prioritizing it over direct damage, which is a cool way to play.

In one of my games most State-inflicting actions are 100% reliable. The ones that aren't don't directly use the RNG, but instead the inflict the state if the skill is a Critical Hit. The Crit calculation is an RNG roll but the odds heavily depend on the DEX stat and can also be influenced by winning a little microgame during battle - so it's much more in the player's control than most RNG rolls are. In another one of my games, all States are 100% reliable, but their actual effect is subject to Utility Scaling.

#### jonthefox

##### Veteran
This topic had me imagining an alternate reality of how states and resistance traits worked in the engine. Instead of resistance being a percentage, it was a "level". So level 1 resistance, level 2 resistance, etc.

Level 1 resistance = the effect is reduced by 25%, and the duration is reduced by 1 turn.
Level 2 resistance = the effect is reduced by 50%, and the duration is reduced by 2 turns.
Level 3 resistance = the effect is reduced by 75% and the duration is reduced by 3 turns.
Level 4 resistance = immune to the effect

Maybe when MZ comes out I'll see if I can pay somebody to write this plugin for me.

### Latest Profile Posts

concept: zombie slayer fest.

Lag because of outdated hardware.

Lots todo:
-Terrax lightning should have another step for the flashlight, between up down left right.
-Also Online mv from Nelderson should emit the flashlight from the other player.
-Animation needed for killing the zombie...
Working on a case. Get all the evidence to prosecute some bad guys.
But, the game development schedule delayed.
The moral of the story: No good deed goes unpunished... I guess...
Except that, nothing to see here.
just beat ff7 original for the first time since 2010. having played remake last year, I have a much better appreciation for the original oddly enough. I still like some of the character presentation in remake more, but the original's got a lot going for it.
Ever reach that moment in your life when your juggling a dozen or more projects that you know will never be made but don't have the heart to delete them? Ugh, I hate those moments...
Why must you hurt me so?

111,451
Messages
1,061,206
Members
144,818
Latest member
OMEGASS