Static hit points

[Eschaton]

I had this idea of the PC and all NPCs hit points remaining static at 100. Level one: 100 hit points. Level 20: 100 hit points. Little wolf off the beaten path: 100 hit points. Final boss: 100 hit points.

Obviously, the stats would have to balance around this. A low level character kills an opponent slowly, while a high level character kills an opponent quickly. STRATEGY kills an opponent the quickest.

Important note: hit points are constantly regenerating.

My question is: what do you think?

 

[Cozzer]

Well, mechanically having both damage and HP scale is the same thing as having neither scale, but it gives a different feeling.

Bigger numbers make the player feel like his characters are getting stronger.

So, I'd recommend this for a game where the characters don't grow much in strength, storywise.

 

[Eschaton]

I figure a level one player would average at 10 or so DPR, while a 20th level player would average at 50-75 DPS.  But this was a rough estimate before doing any hard math.  After thinking about it for a while, I thought about remaining static at 500 hit points for PCs and NPCs, and scale damage from 10% per round at early levels upwards toward 90% per round at later levels by optimal-built PCs.  Skillful combinations of attacks and optimal builds could mean OHKOs by the player or the enemy very easily.

 

[Berylstone]

I had this idea of the PC and all NPCs hit points remaining static at 100. Level one: 100 hit points. Level 20: 100 hit points. Little wolf off the beaten path: 100 hit points. Final boss: 100 hit points.

Obviously, the stats would have to balance around this. A low level character kills an opponent slowly, while a high level character kills an opponent quickly. STRATEGY kills an opponent the quickest.

Important note: hit points are constantly regenerating.

My question is: what do you think?

I think it's fine as long as players can obtain new stats or armors that affect how many hit points they lose when they are attacked.  Otherwise, I think your gameplay will risk stagnation.

 

[Cozzer]

Huh... wouldn't having battlers dealing 90% damage per round make most battles pretty boring?
Like, whoever attacks first wins, full stop.

Like the "rocket tag" that happens with high-level 3.5 D&D characters...

 

[Eschaton]

Huh... wouldn't having battlers dealing 90% damage per round make most battles pretty boring?

Like, whoever attacks first wins, full stop.

Like the "rocket tag" that happens with high-level 3.5 D&D characters...

Well, I agree that it is an issue.  At that point, the player better be the one to attack first.  I plan on using an ABS.

And also, we're talking optimal builds.  What NPC is going to have an optimal build?

 

[Cozzer]

And also, we're talking optimal builds.  What NPC is going to have an optimal build?

The one who needs to be a threat to the PCs.

Anyway, I have to say I don't really like the idea of OHKO or almost-OHKO being common, especially for the player and very especially if they have a miss chance and VERY especially if they can happen before the player has even had a chance to act.

 

[Eschaton]

I'm using an ABS.

 

[Cozzer]

Whoops. I read that as an ATB. My bad.

 

[orochii]

Actually, when you think about "regular games", you can see that with, let's say, Atk/Def/HP balancing, all you're trying to do is to make monsters to have some kind of consistent damage, which you can translate to a percentage.

Example, a character has 384HP. If there is a monster, you will want this monster to deal reasonable damage when their levels are around yours. But, what's reasonable damage? Let's say our reasonable damage comes from the monsters having to hit your character 16 times. Their damage would be around 384/16=24 per turn. Let's talk about percentages now! These monsters deal around 7% of damage per turn.

Teoretically there is no difference. Except from the fact that growing/static HP is a variable to be taken into account when balancing things. So, this thing can be pretty doable.

==

Now, for a static HP number, I think I would suggest a simple damage calculation, something like "ATK - DEF", and make it so it never does less than 1dmg (because 100hits for a kill is enough boredom -and that without taking into account the ABS thing and the autorecovering). On a regular RMVXA skill, it would look like this...

[a.atk-b.def,1].max
But anyway, all I say after all is that I support your idea (?), and good luck,

Orochii Zouveleki

 

[mahan]

you can't really make a static HP in RPG games when there's is this thing called "Levelling" well for me this are the following reasons

1. If you make 100 HP in every living actor and enemies on the game it doesn't make the player feeling growing
2. It will be boring if you only see 10~20 damage when you even reach level 90 when your hitting a level 80 monster. You're not really growing after all
3. defense attributes increase can be really hard to decide because you are only in range of 1~100 numbers. if you are already on the final scenes of the game you maybe giving an armor with 20 to 30 defense armor + the natural defense of the levelling character so it will make your monsters hitting maybe 5 or 10 damage even at level 90
4. Your game will be much like a FPS game, its more a strategy to win. RPG's are not designed for being as strategic because RPG players are expected to level up rather than being startegically thinkers along the game.

If you want to put some STRATEGY and BALANCE on the game, concentrate on balancing equipments, stats, skill attributes, states and battle mechanics both on actors and enemies.

 

[Eschaton]

Obviously, the stats would have to balance around this. A low level character kills an opponent slowly, while a high level character kills an opponent quickly. STRATEGY kills an opponent the quickest.

Do appreciate the input, though.

 

[orochii]

you can't really make a static HP in RPG games when there's is this thing called "Levelling" well for me this are the following reasons

1. If you make 100 HP in every living actor and enemies on the game it doesn't make the player feeling growing
2. It will be boring if you only see 10~20 damage when you even reach level 90 when your hitting a level 80 monster. You're not really growing after all
3. defense attributes increase can be really hard to decide because you are only in range of 1~100 numbers. if you are already on the final scenes of the game you maybe giving an armor with 20 to 30 defense armor + the natural defense of the levelling character so it will make your monsters hitting maybe 5 or 10 damage even at level 90
4. Your game will be much like a FPS game, its more a strategy to win. RPG's are not designed for being as strategic because RPG players are expected to level up rather than being startegically thinkers along the game.

If you want to put some STRATEGY and BALANCE on the game, concentrate on balancing equipments, stats, skill attributes, states and battle mechanics both on actors and enemies.

OBJECTION! (Wright's reference xD). Anyway, since I disagree, citing my points of view can be good for the topic. Or so I hope (?).

1. FF6 for example, characters get only HP and MP by levelling. Other attributes are raised only by Esper effects. Does that means that FF6 feels to not grow because not all values grow? (until a certain point where you get access to Espers to raise your stats).

The numeric grow thing is something that comes from the root, D&D. But I don't think it is a mandatory thing for RPGs to have. I know that now there is this trend of incorporating "RPG elements" on ANY kind of game (skill trees for a Tetris game -and in BF4-). But that doesn't makes it a role playing game. Same if, again, in BF4 you leveled up. It doesn't makes it an RPG.

"Progression" and "growing" can be implemented in an theoretical infinite amount of ways. from which I can only cite right now a skill-based growth and a numerical growth.

2. You don't need those extravagantly high numbers from FinalFantasy. Actually it just gets useless after a certain point (100000s of damage! yeah well, your monster of 1kkk will die in 100 hits -or after spamming 5 renzokukens *cough*FF8*cough*-, it's the same if you do 100dmg and the monster has 10000hp, or make 10 and enemy has 1000...). Do you really need all that differentiation? All those digits to waste...

3. By using regular calculations, yes, it will be, because these calculations expect your character's HP to grow. But if you do an equation suited to your own needs, it will make things easier.

3. 4. This is something I've been thinking about, and where on some cases I find I can agree with you. But in some cases, and by so I mean that it does not always is correct.

Most RPGs have the problem of being static, having no or little variation on circumstances. In an FPS, you have things (and yourself) moving in an scenario, which needs you to adapt to the specific situation. RPGs on the other hand are pretty much scripted, and you need to solve the puzzle of what things to do. Some games have made good battles though, and this is something where I feel a need of citing FinalFantasy for the third time. And Chrono Trigger. Small things like a monster that changes its weakness. Or in Chronno Trigger specifically, some skills had special target scopes, like Cyclone and Slash, and enemies moving around (yeah, bad thing is that enemies movement is pretty much random, so making them line up to hit them all with this Slash will be pure luck).

But anyway, these small steps forward are things to take and improve. Or reinvent completely.

Anyway, this is my point of view for these aspects,

Orochii Zouveleki

 

[Eschaton]

The numeric grow thing is something that comes from the root, D&D. But I don't think it is a mandatory thing for RPGs to have. I know that now there is this trend of incorporating "RPG elements" on ANY kind of game (skill trees for a Tetris game -and in BF4-). But that doesn't makes it a role playing game. Same if, again, in BF4 you leveled up. It doesn't makes it an RPG.

"Progression" and "growing" can be implemented in an theoretical infinite amount of ways. from which I can only cite right now a skill-based growth and a numerical growth.

2. You don't need those extravagantly high numbers from FinalFantasy. Actually it just gets useless after a certain point (100000s of damage! yeah well, your monster of 1kkk will die in 100 hits -or after spamming 5 renzokukens *cough*FF8*cough*-, it's the same if you do 100dmg and the monster has 10000hp, or make 10 and enemy has 1000...). Do you really need all that differentiation? All those digits to waste...

3. By using regular calculations, yes, it will be, because these calculations expect your character's HP to grow. But if you do an equation suited to your own needs, it will make things easier.

Yes, yes, YES!  Hallelujah, yes!  This guy gets it!

Stats and turn-based battle 'systems' don't make an RPG an RPG.

Roleplaying makes an RPG an RPG.  The player being able to build and assume the guise of a character in a complete world that reflects the decisions made by that player.  THAT'S AN ARPEGEE!!

Thank you so much!!  I'm not alone!  I wish I could like your post twice!  I wish I could give it a bottle of high-end scotch! 

 

[Omnimental]

Personally, I love the idea of an RPG with fixed hit points.  I'm trying to do something similar with my game, where the combat becomes more complex as you level, instead of just giving you inflated numbers.  In my current project the characters start with high base stats, and leveling up provides minimal stat growth.  Instead, the feeling of advancement comes from learning various active and passive skills, which is a separate mechanic from leveling.