Status ailments that persist after the battle end

Discussion in 'Game Mechanics Design' started by jonthefox, Nov 3, 2018.

  1. Countyoungblood

    Countyoungblood Sleeping Dragon Veteran

    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    288
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    Lol as if your posts werent a huge part of what pulled the thread off topic. But whatever you said youre done.

    Back on topic?

    I think most of us agree there is very little utility in maintaining any status ailments after battles outside of trivial tedium which most challenging games omit.
     
    #41
  2. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    I honestly don't know what to reply to you. Other than just "okay?".

    I mean... is this a blatant attack on me? Is this your idea of trying to convince someone they're wrong without an argument?

    I'm just not sure what to do with "post that is obvious trollbait to inspire flame war", I guess?
     
    #42
  3. Kes

    Kes Global Moderators Global Mod

    Messages:
    20,358
    Likes Received:
    10,404
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA

    Please will everyone note that this is not a place to analyse Mass Effect games. Please stay on topic.
    Thanks.

     
    #43
    Finnuval, Wavelength and kairi_key like this.
  4. KoldBlood

    KoldBlood Make It Better Veteran

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    The Void
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    Wow, I'm super late getting back this. Looks like everyone had fun without me! Lol

    First things first:

    @Countyoungblood

    Last time I played Dark Souls making sure you had enough potions aka Estus Flasks was a good chunk of the strategy of the game. Along with its Save Point style save system AND persistent states after battle. Not to mention the insta-death curse state. All while being a great and challenging game, imagine that.

    Also, the choices made before a battle and after a battle ARE strategy and, arguably, are sometimes the most important choices. That holds true in turn based combat, real time combat, and even real life combat.

    You literally just confirmed @Tai_MT's entire argument about teaching the player to turn back in the face of danger and prepare before diving right back in there. Like strategy, preparation can take many forms from items, to equipment, to grinding, etc and is just as important. You wouldn't attempt to win car race without a car or gasoline would you?

    The main take away from this is; Just because someone doesn't like the same games as you, or even me for that matter, that doesn't make their arguments invalid.



    Anyway,
    @Wavelength Sorry for the extremely late reply. I love Mark Brown's material, he made some great points in that video on how to better handle keeping players playing your intended way but I don't feel it pertains very much to the idea of persistent states except for maybe when it comes to things like drawing out battles and walking in circles to remove them, I suppose then it applies. Also, thank you for the complement and critical feedback on my consumable cures, I thought long and hard about how to make them useful in their own right and I'm glad to hear some actual feedback from an outside party.

    I have to fight back a bit on removing my persistent states though because while, yes, it would remove the need for the player to go into the menu for cures post battle and, by extension, supposedly increase the fun factor it also removes an entire facet of the combat system and function of those states like poison. Since my game is very much based on the "chronic" style you mentioned resource management is a key component of how long the party can stay in a dungeon and with several ways for the player to acquire, maintain, and control the expenditure of those resources through the use of items, gear, skills, and just generally good combat choices the player shouldn't be facing unreasonable circumstances unless they have made some major mishaps. States like poison are meant to affect the current and future battles meaning the player must make choices on how to deal with it in the future. Even if you don't have cures you can use HP potions through it to out live it but that is somewhat sub-optimal, especially when a cure will get rid of it and protect you for a while as well but it might depend on your current HP. That's the point, to give something for the player to account for, suddenly that scorpion monster is still a threat outside of the battle making it dangerous and a priority target or not if you equip for it or drink an antidote before the battle. There's more than one way to deal with the issue, I'd hope the player explores at least one of them.

    I won't harp on it too much because well @Tai_MT has already said most everything I was going to say and in much greater detail in his previous posts.

    And I'll add that most players at this point, bar maybe the most casual of casual players, are going to pick themselves up and try again because they've been met with a challenge and it is engaging and fun to try to overcome that challenge and win. This is literally the foundation of the Dark Souls series which is from a much older foundation of older games that presented the player with actual challenge that had to be overcome using the game's available systems. No they weren't perfect back then, some were even cheap, but we've come a long way since then and I think we can improve on those older systems instead of removing them completely because they are considered "archaic". Dark Souls is just one modern example of this.

    This is my game design philosophy in a nutshell and the basis of my argument that players are, and should be, at least marginally responsible for some their own fun. Yes, we as game devs should do our best and better! Yes, we should try create super tight game play systems that encourage proper play! However, there is only so much you can realistically do (especially if you're a one man army dev team like me) and there are some players who will still dislike your game regardless of that effort for some arbitrary reason. If you try to make a game that appeals to everyone, it'll end up appealing to no one.

    Wow, this topic has been all over the place but I think that's because the concept of states and their effect on the game play of RPG's encompass quite a wide variety of game design philosophies and concepts and, like much of game design, what type you use typically depends on what game you are making and the type of experience you wish to craft. It has been very interesting hear everyone's opinions and approaches (even the ones I don't agree with) to this concept.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2018
    #44
    Tai_MT likes this.
  5. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    Honestly, I think something important to note is that even proponents of "states shouldn't persist after combat" have said that states need to be more powerful.

    If you cure states after each combat, you need to make those states significantly powerful enough to actually change the flow of combat and cause the players to reprioritize their combat gameplay. Whereas, if you do not cure those states after combat and rely on the player to do so, you can make those states a significantly less threat, since their overall threat can be transferred from combat to combat and continue to hinder your gameplay.

    I'm not sure what the ratio would actually be, but I imagine you'd probably have to double what I'm doing just to get the same effect of "deadliness" from enemies applying states to you, if they were cured automatically after each combat. Though, that hypothesis will probably remain untested indefinitely, as I don't think anyone would be willing to test it and try to balance it.

    For example, a standard RPG character starts with pretty close to 70 HP in most instances. Poison in those games usually inflicts like 3% HP damage every "tick", which is usually once a turn. This amounts to like... 1-2 damage every turn? Nonlethal. Easy ignored. So, to make a player not ignore it and to get them to prioritize it in a standard RPG, you might have to increase the damage output of it to probably close to 10% HP damage every tick. In extended battles, this gives the player roughly 10 turns to cure it (provided they don't get hit by monsters) and makes curing it a priority as it's now draining 7 HP per turn. In fact, the only place even this form of Poison becomes a sort of threat is in an extended battle that could possibly TAKE at least 6 or so full turns. So... A boss fight. If winning the combat automatically cures the Poison, then it is in the player's best interest to grind like they're Tony Hawk with Infinite Balance Cheats on in order to make combat with boss encounters take as few turns as possible. In order to nullify the power of these States in the first place.

    In short, it's a system that strictly and heavily enforces grind if you ever want to make it something the player has to worry about. Because, that Poison, even at 10% damage every turn... is worthless in a fight of normal mobs that you slaughter in the first one or two turns. You'll take one tick of damage and the battle is over, state is cured.

    To even make Poison something you have standard mooks give your characters... You'd probably have to jack it up to 15 or 20% damage a turn. Otherwise, what's the use of inflicting it at all? It drains 7 HP and then the player walks free?

    So, then you would end up trying to balance your combat around just making these states A THREAT TO THE PLAYERS. You'd have to actively design combat to last longer. The longer it lasts, the more you can reduce the damage output. But, then combat takes a while and ultimately bores your players as they can't "one shot" weak mooks that are no longer threats to them. Combat has turned into a slog. With combat also lasting more turns, there's even greater opportunity for the player to nullify the effects of this Poison by simply bringing along Antidotes. So, let's say you've tripled the length of battles just to be able to cut Poison back down to 10% HP every turn. Player takes a single tick of it, knows the battle is going to take a while, pops the Antidote... Your state is no longer deadly anymore and has turned into simply adding tedium to the game as the player will be visiting the menu during combat... EVERY SINGLE TIME they're inflicted with a state. It's no longer an OPTION. The player can no longer PREPARE to deal with states or plan around ending combat sooner... Because, to even make your states have an effect, you had to artificially lengthen the amount of turns it takes to win a standard combat... or inflate the effects of your States to make them have any meaning what-so-ever.

    I imagine this would become an absolute nightmare to try to balance that ultimately renders the entire "States" portion of any battle system... "Pointless". You'll end up with states so weak they're easily ignored in order to "preserve the fun" and keep the player out of the menus... Or, you'll end up with states so powerful that they make your combat tedious in all facets in order to justify putting States in your game to begin with.

    The very Core of what a state does in an RPG is serve as a "preparedness check". That's the design purpose of it. It is, naturally, a test of the player's ability to plan ahead and adapt strategy on the fly. Only if you are not prepared should a state be deadly to your party. It should alter the flow of combat just enough to stall the player for a turn or two. Or, force them to adopt a new tactic since usual tactics won't work.

    The very idea and nature of a state in any RPG is to make the player open the menu and expend a piece of finite resource to get rid of the effect. This action alone changes combat strategy. It changes player tactics. If a player does not seek to cure your states, they have failed and should not exist. If a player does not seek to avoid your states, then those states have failed and should not exist.

    Older RPG's often actually include state resisting gear for this reason. I think the most famous of which is from Final Fantasy. "Ribbon". Renders the wearer completely immune to absolutely every single state. An equip so powerful that guides exist for every game in which it exists for how to obtain the Ribbon or how to obtain the most amount of Ribbons... There are even guides on how to get "the second best thing to the Ribbon" in a lot of these games. Because, that's how important your States should be.

    Important enough that a player wants to equip something that nullifies them. To avoid the menu. To avoid spending money on consumables. To avoid using MP to cure it. Important enough that a player wants to prioritize targets who drop the worst effects on the party. Important enough that a player should be curing them as quickly as possible.

    But... if the dev cures them after every single combat... I can really see only two ways of that game working. Player engages in excessive grind to pad stats and make combat much faster to avoid the deadly states... Or the player spends most of combat navigating menus to clear the states because even 2 rounds of combat could kill the party or reduce resources by an insane amount.

    But, if your states really don't hurt me at all as a player... Well, it honestly doesn't matter whether you cure them for me after combat or not. Because, frankly, they're just an icon on my character's head, and I get to continue bashing enemies to death regardless of it. I'll pop a potion afterwards if I've lost more than 30 of my 70 HP. If I didn't... oh well. Not worth expending that Antidote that costs 4x as much as the basic Potion healing item. Or, maybe I could just go back to town and stay at the Inn for the price of a single Potion and restore my HP, MP, and cure all my states too. Yeah, that's probably far cheaper and more convenient... Or, maybe just wait for my party member to die. They've got like 5 states on them already. If they go into KO, they lose all those states and I can just expend a single item to cure all of that and give them a good chunk of their HP back as well. Saves me money on the restoratives and curatives.

    I don't know if my method solves those problems, but I think it does. 2% Poison Damage on characters with 20 HP is 1 HP tick a turn. Which is fairly deadly in the early game. It persists after combat. Can carry into the next one. It can cure in 5 to 8 turns if you want to wait it out. You can obtain Antidotes by buying them. You can obtain Poison immunity and resist gear before you encounter it. You can stock up on 5 GP potions if you want (they only cure 20 HP, but they're cheaper than Antidotes if you want to just wait it out). Later enemies inflict 5% poison on you... kills you in 20 turns... 10% poison on you... kills you in 10 turns... 20% on you... kills you in 5 turns. All so that being Poisoned remains effective, even against characters who have 1000 HP now. The more powerful versions are harder to wait out. They require the more expensive HP Consumables to keep up with the damage if you try to ignore them. But, you can still buy your (by now, exceptionally cheap!) Antidotes... kill enemies fast enough they don't inflict L4 Poison on you... or wear gear that resists these states so you simply do not have to deal with them. The player need not grind in my system (because grinding may give you levels, but not power). They need only decide on a course of action on how to deal with things of this nature. Wait it out? Bring along the items that restore it? Make yourself immune/resistant to it? Prioritize targets that inflict it? Lots of options that simply involve letting the player make a decision. Every single one allows players to continue moving forward if they so wish, so long as they have decided on an effective strategy that works for them. Oh, and yes, there is a strategy that involves "equipping an item that eliminates all random encounters" as well.

    But, honestly, maybe the only real option to the "game cures all states after combat" is the simplest one that's been done as far back as... well... Final Fantasy. An equip for a character that cures the states at the end of combat. Or, one that players can obtain that makes you Immune to them all. Maybe we can call it... "The Ribbon"? :D Just a thought.

    I mean, if you cure states after combat for your players, are there any other options for your type of game? It's going to either be "players will tediously grind" or "your game is so easy that your states are ignored anyway, so you wasted a ton of time designing them". I don't see a third option in there without essentially wasting a ton of man-hours trying to figure out a way to balance your combat around such a mechanic.
     
    #45
    KoldBlood likes this.
  6. Seirein

    Seirein Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    42
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    The common argument here against ailments that persist after battles is that it is an inconvenience for the player. However, merely because an ailment wears off at the end of battle doesn't mean it isn't an inconvenience.

    I'll take Dragon Quest as an example. You have spells in that game that can reduce an enemy group's accuracy or seal an enemy group's spells. Some enemies also have access to these spells. These effects wear off at the end of battle. However, there aren't items or abilities that can remove these effects. And in some of the games, these effects don't wear off mid-battle. You can end up with your attackers crippled or your healer incapable of healing, with RNG being the deciding factor as to whether you suffer a party-breaking ailment.

    Dragon Quest III has an early-game enemy that will hit your entire party with the illusion spell. It's an enemy with little HP and does little damage with its attacks. But because they can reduce your whole party's accuracy, they just become a nuisance to deal with. Rather than waste your Mage's MP, because you'll need it for the stronger enemies in the dungeon, you'll probably just spam attacks until you eventually win.
     
    #46
  7. jonthefox

    jonthefox Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    440
    Location:
    NYC
    @Tai_MT well, wait a second here. I don't think balancing a poison state--which does not persist after the battle ends--is as difficult as you're making it sound.

    Example 1: poison does 10% hp per turn (I always thought 5% was too low, but still - 10% isn't outrageously high). In your example, with a player who has 70 hp at level 1...that's 7 extra damage per turn. IF the battle only lasts 1 turn, that 7 damage is not nothing - and I would argue that if battles don't at least sometimes go 2 turns, the game's battles aren't challenging enough. Let's assume battles last 1 to 2 turns, so let's take the average of 7 and 14 which is 10.5. So poison is doing 10.5 extra damage per battle, when your max hp is 70....that's hardly negligible! In a game where healing is abundant and there's very little risk of long-term resource attrition, THEN I would certainly agree with you. But many jrpgs have their gameplay about resource management, and you've now given an enemy that is perhaps weak with its physical attacks, a new kind of threat. Let's say this enemy would've done 1 or 2 damage to your tanks with a normal attack, and 5 or 6 damage to your squishies with a normal attack. Again, I'm choosing these values because you said max hp of 70 at level 1. In both cases, if the player gets poisoned during the battle, and does not use an antidote or whatever, he will incur a huge penalty of extra damage!

    Example 2: this would be an approach which I think you'd approve of - since you said that if poison is removed after battles, it needs to be made much more powerful so that it affects the SINGLE battle it occurs in. I completely agree. So in this case, instead of an hp tick drain each turn (which you rightly pointed out, would be very problematic in single battles unless it was a boss battle), I would instead choose to have the poison state reduce all stats by 50%. Now you have a big incentive to use an antidote after you've been poisoned, unless you think it's better and are able to end the battle while that character's offense and defense has been crippled. You probably don't need him to end the battle, but now the battle might take an extra turn to end - which means your whole party takes extra damage! OR, if he gets attacked, since his defense is cut in half, he's going to take a lot of extra damage! So again, being poisoned carries with it a big risk, forcing the player to make a strategic decision.

    Overall I very much agree with your idea that if poison is not going to persist after battle, then the in-battle effect needs to be much enhanced to make it meaningful. But I think there are a variety of relatively easy and cool approaches to do this - provided the main gameplay concern is long-term resource management. By its very nature, any state that slowly wears away at you isn't going to be meaningful if the gameplay is mostly just about the danger in present battles.
     
    #47
  8. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    @jonthefox

    Fair points. As Wavelength says, lots to unpack here. :D Let me get started.

    I don't necessarily think it has to be just "You're poisoned". It's usually just the shorthand I use for "DoT"s. So, we'll start there. I'm going to ignore your "make them weaker in the stats department" idea just for this part here. I'll come back to it, I promise.

    Okay, so, you've got 70 HP on a character. 10% drain would probably be reasonable in a system where it's automatically cured after each combat. I, personally, think it would need to be higher than that to be any sort of proper "threat" to the players, but we'll just kind of roll with the 10%.

    We're going to have to make some "real world assumptions" here. Or rather... set the variables and parameters. Okay, so most JRPG's... by the time you've hit the first boss you have 2 or 3 characters in your party. Just for the sake of difficulty... let's just say you've got two. For the sake of argument, we'll also say that one of them is a Tank. From an average enemy, he's going to take 4-5 damage a hit. We'll say. Just so the state is more deadly than the attacks. We'll make our second character a mage. For the sake of argument, I want to make them into a White Mage who specializes in healing. Let's give that character a Mana Pool roughly on par with our Tank's health. 70 MP. We'll give them roughly 55 Health as the mages tend to be a bit squishier... and they'll take 10-14 damage a physical hit. Because... well... squishy. We'll give the white mage "Antidote" at a cost of 4 MP (I'm not sure how in line this would actually be with such a low Magic Pool... most mages in JRPG's start with pools somewhere at the 170 mark and basic spells costing 6 to 8 MP... so I'm assuming mana consumption is pretty high) and a "Cure" spell at the cost of 6 MP, but it recovers 44-50 HP a use. Let's also make "Cure" a spell that can be "multi-target" for a -35% penalty (in reality, in JRPG's, the penalty is less than this, but we'll jack it up just for difficulty sake).

    Okay, so without items, we can theoretically heal 50 HP to a single target or 32.5 HP to both targets. White Mage is most likely going to be spending every single round casting Antidote or Cure. But, for the sake of argument, every third turn, they'll hit the boss with a regular attack. Just to conserve that MP of theirs.

    So, assuming our Tank has something like Taunt in order to take all the hits... They're dead in roughly... 14-18 hits? If they've got a full heal before the boss fight. And, let's face it... it's a JRPG... so they've got a full heal, a full restock of MP as well, and a save point just outside the boss room.

    The effective "Cure" ability of our White Mage pushes this up to an extra... 514-580 HP? Even doing the maximum of 5 HP a hit, that's an extra ONE HUNDRED HITS it takes to kill the Tank. ONE HUNDRED. This is before we even get to inflicting the state.

    Okay, we inflict the state on the Tank. 7 damage every turn on top of the 5. 12 damage a turn. Okay. If the player chooses to not remove the DoT in this battle at all... It's still FIFTY HITS... or... FIFTY TURNS to kill JUST THE TANK. Yes... JUST THE TANK. Well, it's a little less than 12. I rounded it to simply "double the damage means you get half as many turns". The DoT is not deadly enough to even warrant worrying about. It'll be cured at the end of combat. It won't take even 30 separate rounds of combat to dispatch this boss. Most JRPG bosses are dispatched in 12-15 rounds if they're particularly difficult. Really difficult ones will go to 25... which is still only about half the damage necessary to inflict a single casualty on the party.

    Okay, so in actual RPG combat, we've got a lot of moving pieces here. Lots of stuff to try to balance around. We're not even getting into the fact that most enemies in a JRPG don't even inflict states on your party at all... or fail more than 50% of the time to do so (on average, they inflict a state once every three attempts, unless it's scripted or hits multiple targets). So, you might not even have to deal with Poison until the third round of combat. And that's only if they attempt to inflict you with the DoT every single round. Which... they won't. Because JRP's tend to design around movesets of 3 or 4 different attacks and only one of them usually inflicts a state. So a 1 in 4 chance of using an attack that inflicts a state... and a 1 in 3 chance of that state actually being inflicted.

    I know, this is a lot of numbers to follow.

    Okay, so you have a boss that will take... let's just air on the side of difficulty and say 25 rounds to beat. It's a long slog of a battle. So, just with simple math, you'll probably get hit with poison... 3 times in the whole battle? We're just going to assume that every four turns it tries to inflict a DoT on a member of the party... and then it only works once every 3 turns. This is "best case scenario for the player". Absolute edge of the spectrum. So, we're 12 turns into combat before either party member gets hit with Poison. Well, that's halfway through the fight. If you cure it right now for the low low cost of 4 MP... you easily zero out your MP bar if you do nothing but Cure for the rest of that MP bar. You'll have the DoT back on you at Round 24... but you win on Round 25 anyway, so it's instantly removed! The enemy might get two ticks of Poison in the whole battle against you. So, instead of losing a party member in 50 turns... It's pretty much back up there to 100 again. This is the "best case scenario" for the player. Worst case is the above example where the player is poisoned the first turn, never cures it, and simply spams "Cure" the rest of combat. 50 turns to lose anyone. The Poison DoT at 10% HP damage a turn... Effectively does nothing, poses no threat, isn't worth curing.

    But, okay, maybe there are some extra monsters on the field with the Boss. Let's give the boss 4 monsters. They can be dispatched in two hits a piece and will spread their damage evenly among the party. They'll do like 6 Damage to the Squishy Mage and 3 to the Tank. Mage pops the "multi Cure" (JRPG's are so fond of letting you multi-target your skills, especially healing ones) for the first few turns of combat while the Tank dispatches them... Battle now lasts to 33 turns? Even with the extra damage piled on, you're looking at... 44 turns or so to even put anyone out of commission? Still no threat.

    To make a DoT in combat even worth inflicting the player, you would have to jack up the damage far beyond 10% or remove/cripple most staple RPG Systems in order to make it more effective. You'd have to either remove healing skills or severely limit magic pools to prevent all that effective extra HP on your characters... or maybe jack up the cost of those skills... which is the same as limiting the magic pool. You'd have to remove "full heals" from anywhere in a dungeon. You'd have to make sure to even put the player at risk, they get close to that 50-100 Round Limit across THE ENTIRE DUNGEON(I don't recommend that, that's a lot of very excessive combat, and even if every enemy in the dungeon can drop a DoT on you, if you kill them in one or two rounds, but it only 'takes hold' every 3 or so... you're going to go much of that dungeon without ever even being inflicted with the state to begin with)…. You'd have to have every enemy drop states with enough chance for them to hit that they become deadly and the player must cure them every single time... so they'll spend a lot of time in the menus during combat... You'd have to limit the ability of the player to bring in Consumables into the dungeon and use them even outside of combat... Any extra potion they can bring is more HP, which simply makes your DoT less dangerous.

    All of that is why I said you have to severely annoy and frustrate any player in the game to make it not "easy mode". Just to balance around "the state is removed at the end of combat". You would have to make gameplay excessively frustrating, grindy, and annoying... all in an effort to make the player care about curing your states.

    Okay, on to your idea about simply not inflicting DoT's on enemies and just making the States more powerful in that single battle to make them worth curing. :D What you've suggested is what I've done in my own game.

    Paralyze cannot be cured by anything except consumable... and combat end. Stun can only be cured by being attacked... using a consumable... or combat end. Sleep can only be cured by percentage chance upon taking a physical blow... a consumable... or combat end. Frozen can only be cured by consumable, lots of turns have passed, or combat end. Zombie can only be cured by Consumable. Silence is only cured via Consumable or Combat End. Confuse and Charm can only be cured by Consumable or Combat End. Poison 1-4, Burn 1-4, Blind 1-4... They persist after combat.

    You have to make your states that powerful to make the player care about curing them, if you're going to cure them after combat anyway. Because, otherwise... look how many turns it takes to even put them "in danger" to begin with. DoT's are a resource threat... which means to make them any sort of threat at all... they actually have to bleed your resources VERY quickly. Any other state can be turned into an "immediate threat" by just making the player take more turns to kill the enemy... or having their party members disabled in some fashion. To make any DoT a threat in an RPG System that cures your states at the end of combat... it would have to do like 20% HP damage every single tick. Or, maybe more, if it's not inflicted that often, and HP Recovery makes your effective HP like x8 than your stats even show you.

    I don't know anyone who would want to try to balance all those variables just to make a DoT an effective threat to any player. Or try to balance how often one of the powerful states hit that disables your team, just to make it effective. More than just, "oh, combat will take me an extra one or two turns now, but I still have a buffer of like 80 more turns before I'm in any sort of really serious threat of a Game Over". I wouldn't want to attempt to balance that at all. Not in any sort of standard RPG setting with all the usual tropes and mechanics intact.

    With all that being said...

    Yeah, I think you could balance a game around states that are removed after every single combat. I just think that you'd have to remove a lot of the standard RPG systems in place to even make it balanced... To make it anything more than "easy mode" and anything less than "spend all your time in the menus removing states... or grinding constantly to make fights much easier in the future due to the potency of States".

    Put simply... I see it as completely impractical. It could be done... but I don't think I've ever seen anyone do it yet. Or attempt it. They typically do it alongside the standard JRPG Mechanics of dedicated healers, abundant Consumables, States inflicted rarely, States don't hinder the player enough... It's just one more "Easy Mode" feature to the already pretty massive list of "Easy Mode" features.

    There's nothing wrong with a game like that, mind you. I just see combat in a system like being rather... tedious. One way or the other.

    Theoretical stuff is pretty fun to think about. But, I think every so often, instead of having these theoretical debates on one system or another... We need to actually throw out all the "common parameters" that persist across the games, because all these systems interact. Your States don't exist in a bubble. You can't just change a single variable and go, "Yep, it works now!". That's not how game design ever works. It's a series of interconnected systems and mechanics that work with each other or against each other.

    I could get my own States system to work no other way except the way in which I designed it. Is it fun? I don't know. But, it allows me to balance fights pretty easily and effectively. It allows me to control how much pressure I'm putting on the player at any given time. It's not the "be all, end all" way of doing things. It's just the way I figured out how to do it based on testing, testing, retesting, testing some more, testing again, removing features, fixing systems, changing mechanics, removing mechanics that no longer served a purpose or worked against what I was trying to achieve. Before I ever finish, I'm likely to do all of that again and again. Refining it as I go along and collect actual real world data feedback instead of just using my assumptions. Half my states persist after combat. The other half are very powerful and are removed after combat. I had to put lots of ways to avoid contracting those states... and inflict them on my players often if they weren't employing one of those methods in order to maintain the level of threat they are meant to have. The level of persistent drain on resources they are supposed to be. I've had to change shop prices more than once just to balance these. I've had to change how long the states last in combat to make them "more fair" or "more effective". I had to remove "state removing skills" from the entire RPG. I'd already removed my dedicated healer to create the necessary gold sink I wanted, but I had to remove "state removing skills" from much of my game... instead, I slapped them behind a character who is 100% immune to all states except Silence and can cure states (and states only! Can't even cure them all at once either! She's got to rank up her skills to do that!). I've reworked monsters... removed some of their gimmicks... added all new gimmicks... etcetera. Lots of moving parts just to get "States that actually pose a threat to the player" to even work. A simple concept with a hundred moving parts that all need to be messed with.

    It's not as simple as, "well, just do it this way, because if you don't, you'll annoy your player". You annoy players mostly just by making a game actually unfair... or boring. Too many games "play it safe" and just make boring games. Games without any sort of challenge, so combat is dull. Then, they load the game with a ton of combat... and then later get upset and make excuses for their players going out of their way to grind. Well, you introduced mechanics that made combat boring, unchallenging, unskilled, and easy to tune out. It's natural a player will grind for extra stats so they can one shot all your crap and move along quickly at that point.

    I think too many people get too caught up in "will this annoy or frustrate the player?" that they actively sabotage their own games and do that with all the features they implement designed to "not annoy or frustrate" any given player.

    But, that's just my opinion.

    :D
     
    #48
    KoldBlood and Wavelength like this.
  9. Wavelength

    Wavelength Pre-Merge Boot Moderator

    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    3,385
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    I still owe you a response to our offshoot of the conversation, Tai, but I want to weigh in on your response to Jon's post about making non-persistent states that are still actual threats.

    On the Tank/White Mage Example

    I really like the way that you logically laid out theoretical numbers and included stuff like healing in your example. There are at least two major issues that I see in your analysis. The first is that, in focusing on MP efficiency, you've failed to include the very important value of a Turn in combat - specifically, the turn investment to inflict Poison vs the turn investment to cure Poison vs. the turn investment to heal HP that Poison has eroded. This is significant, but I feel the second issue looms larger.

    While some battle systems do indeed use the kind of numbers you laid out, based on our past conversations about healing and class design I know that we can agree that the example setup you gave is awful battle design to start with! If individual characters are actually surviving 50-100 hits without falling, making them nigh-invincible (and the only thing that might actually cause hardship is to make states persistent and threaten the player with running out of cure items for them), then the battle system has far larger design issues than its state design!

    It might be worth recalculating your example using some or all of these changes:
    • The single-target healing skill now costs 25 MP and heals ~35 HP (which is still on the powerful side, but balances it just a little bit better against the white mage's offensive skills). This alone should make the DoT a lot more interesting as a threat.
    • As in your example, allow multi-target healing at a 35% penalty.
    • The tank cannot consistently taunt, but now can only taunt on 50% of turns (as it is very dicey design to allow consistent taunts in a turn-based combat system that does not include movement around a map); additionally, assume a third of enemy attacks are AoE which ignore taunts.
    • States are inflicted at 100% reliability (this is simply good design, per not relying heavily on the RNG), though such skills may be used infrequently (your call, Tai).
    • Properly steep EXP curves have been designed to significantly reduce the effects of grinding weak enemies.
    • OPTIONAL - just for fun, if you want, also make the assumption that the white mage doesn't have any status-curing spells. If a character gets hit with a status effect, they have to use a consumable or ride it out.
    I haven't run the new numbers myself, but I bet you that the 10% Poison will look a lot more threatening with these more well-designed mechanics running!

    On Forcing the Player to Cure States

    You assert that:
    I disagree with this, both in games where states clear automatically after combat, and in games where they don't. I think you have to make the player consider curing them, but leave open the very live option to play through the state instead.

    The best states - the ones that players are going to find the most interesting in the long run - are ones that you can go over, under, or around (all forms of "playing through it"). As a basic example, imagine a state that doubles the damage a character will take from a specific enemy, and also increases the likelihood they'll be targeted by that enemy.
    • You can go over this state by trying to heal through the extra damage that character takes. This will consume a lot of resources but it causes minimal disruption to your battle strategy.
    • You can go under this state by having that character Guard until the state wears off. This will significantly reduce the damage being amped, and even reduce the total incoming damage, but effectively shuts down the character for the duration of the state.
    • You can go around this state by focusing your spells on that specific enemy to disable it for a few turns, or kill it outright. This reduces the duration for which you will need to deal with the state, making it effective, but causes heavy disruption to your original battle strategy.
    • If the design offers consumables to cure states, you can simply cure this state with a consumable. This is the least interesting form of dealing with a state, and therefore the consumables should ideally be uncommon or expensive enough so that they are not the player's go-to except in really tough situations.
    If a state doesn't automatically clear after battle, then the "over" option becomes less appealing, the "under" option becomes impossible, the "around" option usually becomes infeasible (depending on the nature of the status effect), and the uninteresting "cure" option becomes the thing you have to do, because you won't be able to go over/under/around a state that's going to persist for ten or twenty consecutive battles.

    There can still be a few interesting choices with persistent states, like whether to cure them now or wait until later (to avoid having it re-applied one battle later), but in general, it tends to take away from the potential for your player to make interesting choices.

    And as always, interesting choices directly lead to fun.

    On Other Status Ailments

    You've focused a lot on Poison, which admittedly is the most common status effect to make persistent in RPGs (it's even more common for Poison to be persistent than Death, which is.... interesting). In the wider scheme of whether to make status effects persistent or to automatically clear them at the end of combat, though, I'm going to assert that Poison is a total strawman!

    Consider, for instance, Paralysis/Petrify, which completely prevent the battler from acting (making them examples of badly-designed states, but they're common nonetheless). Maybe in a weakly-designed combat system, Poison actually isn't a threat if it can't be cleared after combat. But Petrify sure is!! Losing a party member for the entire duration of a battle would likely be crippling, so unless it happens right near the end of combat, the player is going to be encouraged to cure that status immediately, rather than play the battle out one or two men down in hopes that they can pull off a Pyrrhic victory and clear the Petrify afterward.

    If the player has cure items, Petrify will be just as dangerous whether it's cleared after combat or not. If the player doesn't have cure items, Petrify will continue to be dangerous in the auto-clear world, but in the world without auto-clear after combat, it will act as an automatic "loss" for the player (whether they have to backtrack through the dungeon, or whether they're just screwed). We seem to disagree on whether this is satisfying and fair design (I emphatically feel it isn't!), but the point here is that there was already an interesting dynamic in the effect of Petrify within the battle it's inflicted during.

    On Annoying Your Player

    I'd like to put a few twists on your conclusion. You said that:
    Rather, I think you annoy players by making a game that feels unfair - whether it actually is unfair or not from a balance standpoint is only one contributing factor.

    Other contributing factors include dissimilarity between the cause of hardship and the game's core method of challenge, weight of random factors that are beyond the player's control in causing hardship, inability to react to the hardship after it occurs, and bad communication about how to prevent the hardship.

    Finally, while too many games play it safe and become boring as a result, it's worth remembering that the most boring games are the ones that encourage their player to play it safe!
     
    #49
    KoldBlood and Tai_MT like this.
  10. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    This sounds fun, let's plug in the new numbers. :D

    The 25 turns to defeat the boss assumes the player lands an attack each round. Just for the sake of simplicity. That way, we don't have to calculate turns where both members land a blow, how much HP that drains, how much damage output one member has in comparison to the other, etcetera. Just a flat "if the player lands a blow against the boss this round, with either party member, it will take 25 rounds to beat this boss". It's simplistic and isn't representative of actual combat, but we're already dealing with a lot of numbers. I feel abstracting this part out is beneficial in terms of the discussion.

    Okay, you are going to get an effective 2 Cures off each combat, as you're now 5 MP short of a third cast. We'll just go with the "best numbers" given, which will give the characters an extra effective 70 HP.

    This means your Tank could survive 28 hits or so? Without Poison? The White Mage able to survive... 9 hits without Poison? However, this is using the values of the most damage that could be taken and assumes all the healing goes into either the Tank or the Mage and not both.

    So, a best case scenario for a player here is... All those hits go into the Tank through just... sheer absolute luck. Without the Poison DOT... the most turns you're going to get out of your party here is 32 turns? Assuming the boss does maximum damage each turn without his AOE. Keep in mind... best case scenario. So, you've got a buffer of 7 turns you can waste in that entire battle. Because the boss takes 25 turns to put down. With both party members active.

    Worst case Scenario is... Mage takes the first three hits, loses 42 HP. Necessitates the use of one of the Cures on himself. Puts himself back up to 48 Total Health (so we're not wasting any potential cured HP, this is the optimal time to use the skill). We're still really unlucky here and the Mage takes another 2 hits from the boss in a row. Down to 20 HP. Uses the last remaining Cure cast to get right back up to 55 HP. Now, you've got an effective 14 turns left before your Tank goes down, and 4 more before your White Mage goes down. 21 Turns left to go before you win the fight. You lose, even without a DoT. The battle is already massively unfair against the player without the DoT. A distinct possibility of being unable to win... most of the time... even without an AOE... even without a DoT being dropped on the player.

    So, lets add in the other factors now.

    Boss Monster (without any minions, because if they exist, this combat is impossible for the players to win):
    Turn 1, inflicts Poison DoT.
    Turn 2, inflicts single target hit.
    Turn 3, drops AOE attack that will do roughly half of its attack power to both party members (2 HP to Tank, 5 HP to Mage, being generous).
    Turn 4, inflicts single target hit.
    Repeat this same attack pattern until one side loses.

    Tank:
    Can taunt the Boss, but Taunt only works for 3 turns and then must be reapplied. Ensures Tank is target 100% of the time, if applicable.
    Has a regular attack he can use when not Taunting.

    White Mage:
    Can cast "Cure" on whole party or on single target... for a minimum effective HP gain of 45.5 (multi-target) or a maximum of 70 HP gain (single target). At a cost of 25 MP drain of the 70 maximum pool.
    Can use item "Antidote" when not Curing and will preferably use this to attacking as they are least effective at combat.
    Has a regular attack he can use to land a blow on the turn when the Tank Taunts.

    For the sake of argument, both player characters are faster than the boss, so they go first. Also, turns where both allies attack will only generate an extra 0.5 "rounds left to kill the boss". Just to make things a little easier. Turn order will be Tank, Mage, Boss.

    Turn 1: Taunt, Attack, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank.
    Turn 2: Poison Ticks, Attack, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP damage. (58/70 Tank, 55/55 Mage, 23/25 Turns to kill Boss)
    Turn 3: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (56/70 Tank, 50/55 Mage, 21.5/25 Turns to kill Boss)
    Turn 4: Taunt, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP damage. (51/70 Tank, 50/55 Mage, 20.5/25 Turns to kill Boss)
    Turn 5: Attack, Attack, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank. (51/70 Tank, 50/55 Mage, 19/25 Turns to kill Boss.)
    Turn 6: Poison Ticks, Attack, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP damage. (39/70 Tank, 50/55 Mage, 18/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 7: Taunt, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (37/70 Tank, 45/55 Mage, 17/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 8: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP damage. (32/70 Tank, 45/55 Mage, 15.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 9: Attack, Casts Cure on Tank to Heal 35 HP, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank. (67/70 Tank, 45/55 Mage, 16/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 10: Poison Ticks, Taunt, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (55/70 Tank, 45/55 Mage, 16/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 11: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (53/70 Tank, 40/55 Mage, 14.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 12: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (48/70 Tank, 40/55 Mage, 13/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 13: Taunt, Attack, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank. (48/70 Tank, 40/55 Mage, 12/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 14: Poison Ticks, Attack, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (36/70 Tank, 40/55 Mage, 11/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 15: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (34/70 Tank, 35/55 Mage, 9.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 16: Taunt, Casts Cure on Tank to Heal 35 HP, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (64/70 Tank, 35/55 Mage, 9.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 17: Attack, Attack, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank. (64/70 Tank, 35/55 Mage, 8/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 18: Poison Ticks, Attack, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (52/70 Tank, 35/55 Mage, 7/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 19: Taunt, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (50/70 Tank, 30/55 Mage, 6/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 20: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (45/70 Tank, 30/55 Mage, 4.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 21: Attack, Attack, Monster inflicts Poison on Tank. (45/70 Tank, 30/55 Mage, 3/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 22: Poison Ticks, Taunt, Uses Antidote on Tank, Monster hits Tank for 5 HP. (33/70 Tank, 30/55 Mage, 3/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 23: Attack, Attack, Monster hits Tank for 2 HP and White Mage for 5 HP. (31/70 Tank, 25/55 Mage, 1.5/25 turns to kill boss)
    Turn 24: Attack, Attack, YOU WIN! 400 XP GAINED! 6000 GP EARNED! Serpent's Blade found!

    This assumes you have a lot of Antidotes on hand and that Taunt costs nothing to cast (to make it more fair to the monster, I was counting the turn Taunt was cast as one of the 3 turns).

    Okay, so what do we know based on this? For one... 24 turns to make Poison "deadly". You had to be locked into combat with a boss for 24 turns to make it effective, even at those high MP Costs. But, let's say you only had to inflict half as much damage on the boss monster. Battle is over at Turn 12. Before you even need a second cast of Cure. In fact, the player could ignore Poison for the last few turns, save an antidote, have it cured automatically at the end of combat right there. Look at how long that battle had to be drawn out just to make Poison effective enough to even run Cure dry. This is even a scenario where the player is super afraid of letting Poison linger and thus cures it immediately each time it's inflicted. It's a scenario in which your White Mage only ever takes AOE damage because the player is playing optimally (or at least as optimally as I know how). Look at how much we had to tweak to even get THAT MUCH out of Poison in a single battle.

    In fact, our boss monster is "breaking even" every single round. It spends a turn to get an extra 7 damage against the player in the next turn, but then it has to drop the AOE, which only does 2 damage to the Tank, so it suffers an actual penalty in combat from having the AOE.

    This is my point about "not wanting to try to balance around it". Look at all the stuff you have to change just for the sake of, "make poison deadly in this one combat encounter, so that the player will want to cure it". Nevermind that the player is going to ignore being poisoned in every single combat encounter that isn't a boss fight... because those last no more than 1 or 2 rounds anyway, and it's not a threat there.

    Even if we severely hurt the player in terms of ability to cure themselves... They come out on top and were never in any real danger during that whole fight. It was a foregone conclusion they'd win.

    Well, okay... There is one way they wouldn't win that fight. They play sub-optimally. They don't cure Poison right away. They use Cure when they've got too much HP left and miss out on some of that Effective Extra HP. They don't Taunt every few turns to ensure their Mage doesn't take a hit from the boss. They use Cure as multi-target and gimp their Effective Extra HP. They spend turns using "Guard".

    But, with a system like this, we have to assume there's no equipment the player would have to make themselves Immune to Poison. Why? Because a player would never need it outside of a combat this prolonged... one that would take 12-24 rounds to complete. You'd be creating items for use in a single battle instead of a single dungeon. Likewise, your Antidotes would be worthless in anything except a combat that lasts more than a few rounds. The player simply wouldn't purchase them because Poison isn't all that deadly and it can be cured for free by simply winning combat... until a boss monster comes along and roflstomps them due to you training your players via gameplay that they don't need to ever have Antidotes with them.

    Oh, and you want to curb their ability to simply "roflstomp" enemies to make Poison more effective... by making grind an absolute chore.

    Look at all these punishments you've added to the game simply to satisfy the gameplay mechanic of "All states are cured when combat ends". You punish the player for grinding, you teach them that Antidotes don't need to be bought, have a boss fight punish them for not having Antidotes by wiping the floor with them which will feel insanely unfair to a player, make a boss combat last 24 grueling turns of "lather, rinse, repeat", force the player to visit the menu for an Antidote every few game turns (which is what... once every minute and a half?). Made healing via magic less effective and more expensive so that they're better off buying consumables (and if those are more effective, they may simply outheal your Poison anyway), removed the possibility of equipment that nullifies or lowers the chances of being inflicted with poison, just so poison can be deadly... You've done a lot of really mean an "unfun" things to a player all for the sake of, "states are cured when combat ends".

    That's not even a game I think you'd design. But, it's the game you'd end up designing just to try to solve the problem of, "make states powerful enough that combat is challenging, but also cure them at the end of each combat".

    A lot of that is why I prefer "practical application" to "theory" when it comes to games.

    Anyway, I have to head out to work, so I'll hit the rest of your post later. But, I wanted to touch on that part at least. :D

    EDIT: Okay, I spent a few hours at work and thought about this some more. I honestly don't see a way to easily or effectively balance a DoT skill in an RPG that recovers your States after every combat. I might be wrong, but with all the variables and pieces that interact here... I just can't see a DoT ever working that well in such a system.

    Might be worth it to assume the system is much better for having the DoT's removed in the first place?

    I'll add in another further update to finish off my reply later. I have a 4 hour Meeting to get to and still haven't eaten lunch.

    You might not really need to implement all those punishments and penalties to players if you simply removed the "DoT" States from the game and didn't have to balance around them and their particular brand of gameplay. Sticking with disables or stat reductions would probably enhance a system that removes States after each combat.

    Just a thought.

    Second and Final Edit:

    I agree with almost all of this.

    The first problem I have is where you make your initial disagreement. My point is simply that for a player to WANT to remove a state... it has to be powerful enough to hinder them in a major way. Because, players will ignore things if they can. If they can ignore a State and suffer very little penalty for doing so... They do it. Because it's not threatening. We've both said this, so I know we both agree on it: If a state is not powerful enough, it doesn't need to exist as it offers nothing to combat. Well, you word it differently... I'm paraphrasing. But, even you understand that on some fundamental level that if a State isn't powerful enough... A player simply ignores it because it does nothing to combat. Ignoring it and letting it go away on its own is cheaper. It doesn't waste a turn... waste MP... waste money... So, you'd have to design a state in which the player feels the desire to cure it. It's a binary state. "Is the State hindering in a major way?" If yes, players will feel compelled to cure it absolutely every single time. They won't wait it out. They won't attempt to play around it, unless there is no other option. If no, players will often just ignore it or go around it, because it's easier and cheaper to do so.

    Players automatically find the most efficient ways of doing everything in a game. On their own. Without coaching. By pure drive and instinct. If "Curing it" is the most efficient way to get rid of it, they will do this every single time. If curing it isn't the most efficient way to get rid of it, they will ignore it, every single time.

    This is, of course, barring the situations in which the player has no choice but to wait a State out, because they simply don't have the supplies to fix it.

    We could argue all day about the options a player may have, but eventually we simply have to fall back on what players do. What we know them to do. In predictable fashion. If your state isn't powerful enough, players will wait it out if you can wait it out. If you can't wait it out, they may cure it themselves outside of combat. If your state is powerful, players will cure it every time it's inflicted, as quickly as they can, so long as they have the resources to do so.

    If you have powerful states, players will seek out equipment to nullify those states first. So long as that equipment is pretty good stat wise for the area they need it in, they won't think twice about equipping something a little underpowered for the privilege of evading a State that hinders them. If there is no equipment to nullify those states, they then seek to cure it via Magic. If curing it via magic is too expensive or impossible, players will move on to Consumables. They will buy those consumables in bulk and remove the states as quickly as they can, once they're inflicted, so that turns are not wasted, parties are not wiped, and combat doesn't take longer than necessary.

    If you have states that are too weak, players will simply seek to wait those states out. No matter what form that takes. They'll wait for the timer on the state itself to run out... or try to complete combat as quickly as possible so the state runs out. They won't buy consumables to cure it, won't use equipment to prevent it, won't even spend turns on skills that prevent the states or cure them. Because the states can be waited out. Because they're inconsequential enough to not bother with.

    I've never seen a "middle ground" on that subject. I've never seen a player go, "You know... that state really isn't hurting me... but I'll cure it anyway". I've never seen a player go, "you know... that state hurts me a lot... I'll just wait for it to wear off and spam potions". At least... not when they had the choice. I've also never seen a game where the player would even consider all three of your choices (over, under, or around). There's an optimal choice to be made, and the player makes it. Under normal gameplay circumstances, players do not make Sub-Optimal choices. They just don't.

    I think it's unrealistic to assume that just because the player can do those things... That they will see them all as options. Because, they won't. They'll only see the optimal option, of which there is only ever one, and they'll use it every single time... so your other options may as well not even exist, because they aren't going to add any kind of strategy, challenge, or tactics to the game at all. They'll be options nobody uses, because all the players understand that if you use them, you're playing like an idiot and are more likely to get yourself killed or lose the game.

    It's why I settled on the States the way I did. States that do both options. So that the player has all three of those options and doesn't approach every single state the same. L1 and L2 poison are deadly at early game before you have a lot of HP and every single Hit Point you have matters in combat. But, once that HP value goes up, those states can be ignored. They can be "waited out". The combat dynamic has changed. L3 Poison and L4 poison are most likely to be cured the moment they're inflicted, but that's their point. Even then, with high enough stats, L3 Poison could likely be ignored as well (provided enemies do very little damage and you can dispatch them quickly). It could be waited out. Players may even opt to do that if they've got access to plenty of HP Consumables. I doubt they will, but with enough stats, it's an option. But L4 poison that kills a character in 5 turns and eats away a massive amount of HP? Always deadly. Persists after combat. No matter where you are in the game, this is a state the player is guaranteed to spend a turn to Cure at the first opportunity. They may even spend another turn to cure the damage if it did any.

    To even get the "over", "under", "around" options into my game, I had to simply design states that the player would use those as the optimal decision. I simply provided the illusion that it's all "basically the same state". They're different states that do different things, but the player won't think of them that way. "I can ignore weak poison", "I can't ignore strong poison". It's all associated as just "poison".

    The second disagreement I have is... That unless you have states cure after combat, there is no "around" option. Except... there is. If you kill the enemy before they ever inflict the state... it's going "around" the state. Same as getting it cured early... except it's proactive in this case instead of reactive. But... you actually could accomplish the exact same thing with State Immunity equipment. Or State Resist equipment.

    With a system that cures all states at the end of combat... the only "around" option that will exist in your game and that your players use... will be the "reactive" form of your "going around the state". An option to simply prevent it won't exist... and if it does, players won't use it. Because it's more optimal to simply become stronger characters and kill enemies quicker... than it is to wait the states out. it's more optimal to kill enemies before they inflict the state than it is to wear a piece of equipment that would only ever prevent a single state that would only last 2 turns anyway. It's a system where the only preventative measure a player can take to states is... Grind to higher stats so you can kill enemies faster and they can't inflict their states on you. It's a system that only promotes two options for the player and no more than that. Grind to high levels and high stats in order to kill enemies faster so they don't ever inflict the Powerful States... Or... ignore the states altogether because they're not powerful enough to warrant removing by player action.

    But, if you have states persist after combat... the option to wait it out is there... and might even be optimal. Especially if you don't have Slip Damage. Especially if you have equipment that can remove encounters or lower encounter rates. You took on a state that nullifies a character in combat... so, you end combat quickly since it's more optimal to kill them in 3 turns instead of having to spend 4 in order to cure the state in combat and chance having it put on you a second time. You can then cure it outside of combat. Thereby... going around, using the same method you want to use to "go around" the state. It can just be applied to a more wide array of states instead of only "the states that are negligible to the player".

    I've simply never seen the combat system you propose actually exist. I mean, it exists pretty good as theory... But, in practice? Yeah, not so much. It actually falls pretty flat on its face in practice.

    But, if you ever do find a way to get it to work... I'd love to see it.

    I just focus on Poison because it's a universally known DoT, and DoT's are very basic and "beginner" states in pretty much every RPG. Honestly, it doesn't matter what it's name is. DoT's can also have a very wide range of power that could make them deadly even into the late game. In essence... They're the most versatile States in RPGs.

    As for Petrify... Yeah, I admitted as much earlier. It's why my own design clears it after combat. Because to have it persist after combat is... well... frankly unfair. It's a "mercy option" in my opinion. My "Paralyze" State can only be cured with Consumable (it simply keeps characters from acting at all... forever. It's like KO, except it clears after combat and doesn't drop your HP). So, if you don't have the Consumable, you now have to end combat QUICKLY to get rid of it. It's the Mercy Option. You aren't completely destroyed by it... only possibly destroyed if you don't find a way to end the combat quickly... or figure out ways to prepare for the state ahead of time after you've encountered it the first time.

    But, honestly, it plays back into my first point. To even make the "Cure states after combat" maintain its challenge... you have to use states roughly on par with Petrify. Otherwise, the player will ignore them and let them be cured by the game... If they're so deadly that the player is effectively at a disadvantage when they're on them... They will cure them the first moment they get... unless they can't. But, this means you can't have any variance in your States. They all have to be that powerful. You can't have weak ones, medium ones, and strong ones. Because, anything less than "strong ones", the player will wait out. They'll end combat quickly to cure them. So, you limit yourself to like 1 DoT... one paralyze... one accuracy one... one magic accuracy one... and that's about it. You can do nothing truly interesting with states. It's "powerful or bust".

    Finally... Players pretty much always play things safe. It's part of the natural inclination of all gamers to "optimize their play". Minimize their deaths, their losses, resource loss, etcetera. No matter how you design your game, how you try to force a player to NOT play safe... It's against every video game players' natural inclination. If we find an exploit, we often use it. Especially if the exploit helps us beat a section of game that would be difficult. If the player discovers that by grinding for 3 hours, they can spend the rest of the game in pretty much Easy Mode... they'll do it. In fact, if grinding for 3 hours gives them 3 consecutive hours of Easy Mode, they'll repeatedly grind to gain that advantage. Players seek to make games as easy and safe as possible for themselves as can be reasonably done.

    Why do you think they hate RNG so much? Why do you think you rail against RNG and Accuracy so much? Because, it isn't about whether or not those percentages are fair or not. It's about being able to make the game as safe as possible for yourself as you can. It's about players wanting to be able to destroy entire games without "too many" game overs. Most players prefer "no game overs". All the players care about in a game is how safe they can make themselves in any given game.

    I think what makes a boring game... Is the dev giving these players so many options to remain safe that it removes any substance the game might have had. The only way a dev can encourage a gamer to play as safe as possible is by adding features that make their game as safe as possible. Automatically all states after combat... is such a thing. An encouragement to play as safe as possible.

    What makes a game fun or interesting is the dev hiding all the "safe ways to play" behind player skill instead of Intentional Mechanics that minimize player inconvenience (not frustration or annoyance... INCONVENIENCE). Making a player cure all their own States with Consumables after combat does nothing except mildly inconvenience a player. Let the player find ways to avoid those States if they don't want to cure them after combat. That's what makes a game fun. Not making it easy for a player to "find safe ways to play".

    But, that's just my two cents.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2018
    #50
    SuperMasterSword and KoldBlood like this.
  11. Aoi Ninami

    Aoi Ninami Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    485
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    jonthefox was the first to give a specific figure, and he said 10% per turn (which is in fact the same as the Poison status in my game; I also have a Burn status which is 20% damage per turn). You've run the numbers for 10% every fourth turn, or the equivalent of 2.5% per turn. No surprise that it turns out much weaker!

    Another point to consider: In some games, Poison may deliberately be a weak, low-impact state, because it's the first state to be introduced, and so introduces the player to the whole mechanic of sometimes being in a state and having different decisions to make based on that. Starting off with a low-impact state gives the player more of a safety cushion so they won't lose battles if they make the wrong decisions, but they'll see that some decisions leave them coming out of battles worse off than others, and that helps them work out what to do when more dangerous states come along later.

    I'm going to take issue with another point in your post, too. Reducing the effectiveness of level-grinding doesn't "punish the player for grinding". It changes the decision-making process, before they make the decision whether to grind or not (on the reasonable assumption that the player can see their current EXP, required EXP to next level, and the EXP gained from monsters in the current area). If I'm stuck at a boss and I either need to come up with a better strategy or grind for an hour, and I know this, I'm much more likely to choose "think harder about strategy", and reap the benefit of satisfaction when I find a way to beat the silly thing.
     
    #51
  12. Seirein

    Seirein Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    42
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    I've got to say, the problem with these models is that they're using extremely weak enemy attacks. If the average enemy doesn't hit harder than a poison tick, that reeks of terrible design to me.

    To me, Poison shouldn't be what kills your character. Poison should make it easier for them to get killed, because it's effectively an addition on top of the damage they'd normally take. An enemy does 30% of a party member's HP per attack? They'll survive four hits. But if they're poisoned for 5% max HP per turn, then they can only survive three of those attacks. Maybe not all of those attacks will land, but it's still a continuing drain on HP. Do you take the time to remove it to save yourself the pain? Or just bear it until the battle's done?

    In my game, Poison lasts for 5-8 ticks, does 1/16th max HP per turn, and persists after battle if not cured until its duration ends. So, if ignored, Poison will take away between 30%-50% of a character's HP. That's not necessarily a crippling loss of HP. And there's a simple encouragement to curing Poison rather than letting it run its course: Poison cures cost less than healing the damage. If Poison just wore off at the end of battle, there'd be almost no point to curing Poison when ending the battle is more efficient.

    Also...

    There's this SNES RPG I played, Arcana. One of the things that really made the game bland and uninteresting was that almost every spell had a high cost compared to your party members' max MP, and most spells didn't even do much damage or heal that much to justify their limited use. The end result was a game where you just spam standard attacks 99% of the time and only rarely used any sort of special ability, and even when you did use magic it wasn't exciting at all.

    (The other thing was "dungeon crawler with zero graphics variation within each dungeon.")
     
    #52
  13. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    @Aoi Ninami

    Absolutely fair points!

    So, for the sake of the example given... it's "standard JRPG". Meaning... any game you're likely to buy at the local Gamestop, Walmart, whatever. Something you might even purchase off of Steam in the Indie Market. Most monsters in those games have a movepool of 4 different attacks, especially if they're "boss level". However, I don't really know of a way to get across the point of how weak the Poison would be in such a situation, even at 10% HP, without creating it in RPG Maker and running video on 100 of the same fight while the Random Variance of combat is still in effect. Instead, I simply opted for what I could think of as "the most DPS the boss could deal out while still having Poison as a 10% damage". If the Boss Monster cast Poison on an already poisoned enemy, it loses DPS. If it doesn't get to attack alongside the poison effect, it loses DPS. If it spends two turns casting Poison too soon, it loses DPS as its sacrificing valuable attack turns to do so. Loss of DPS simply makes combat against this Boss Monster even easier.

    I see absolutely nothing wrong with Poison being a "weak, introductory" State to players, provided you have stronger DoT's in your game. But, if it remains the only DoT in the whole game with its same very low power... It quickly loses potency and becomes something pointless to the game itself. Part of the reason I settled on "Levels" for about half of my States. Because some are "introductory" and are meant to be phased out while preparing the players for the stronger ones.

    As for your disagreement with making grinding more difficult for players. Oh, it absolutely is a punishment. 1. You don't need to ever do this as a game dev if your combat relies on PLAYER SKILL instead of CHARACTER STATS. If the Enemies/Boss will kick my butt no matter what my stats are, you've rendered grinding pointless in its entirety. To the point that you don't need to punish the player for doing it... as the player themselves recognize that grinding is going to be a complete waste of time. 2. Your boss is going to have stats of some sort. Unless you've designed a game that can be beaten from start to finish with Level 1 stats... Leveling up is going to remain the most efficient strategy available to any player. That, or optimized equipment. 3. Why make grinding more difficult for a player? To prevent them from breaking your challenge? Why do you care if they break it? Because you've designed it so poorly that it can be broken? Or... because you'll feel like they beat YOU as a HUMAN BEING if they steamroll your game? More often than not, I've seen this justification thrown around the most by people who want to gimp players grinding. "It breaks combat challenge in my game". Okay, so what? Why are you so in favor of removing the player's option to make your combat easier? You should probably focus on WHY they want to make it easier for themselves in the first place. Because, if the player is going out of their way to grind for extra stats... It's because there's something wrong in your game design... and it's not that you aren't punishing them enough for grinding. Because, frankly... Players hate to grind at all, even voluntarily. They are choosing a terrible option because any option other than that is viewed as worse to them. Your combat may be boring. It may be too tough. You may not design enemies or boss fights in such a way that a player can figure them out in the first three game overs and know what they should be doing to win them. Your combat may be a slog. Or repetitive. The problem lies somewhere in there. So, your player is grinding because they're already being punished by not having fun in your game. The solution is not to "make them have even less fun so that they go back to the other unfun stuff". The solution is to fix the unfun stuff to begin with, so the player doesn't feel the urge to do unfun things in order to alleviate the rest of the unfun stuff in the future. Or... if you sufficiently punish the player enough... The game is unfun... tedious... monotonous... annoying... frustrating... and the only way it was remotely tolerable was to grind in order to breeze through that stuff.... But the player finds you're making that a very difficult and time consuming task... They're more likely to just quit playing your game instead of dealing with how unfun your game is. Rage Quit.

    I've quit more than my share of games that started docking and trampling my XP gain to "prevent grinding". Massive XP curves do this same thing to me. Because, now you're demanding I do even more excessive combat against enemies that are more difficult. You're demanding I grind only in the way you approve of and forcing me to do it by enforcing a very bad XP Curve.

    I've also quit a lot of games that tightly restricted how many levels I could gain in an area... or controlled my level ups via events in the game.

    Players naturally move forward in the game when they decide the XP gain they're getting from monsters is no longer effective enough to "grind levels" on. Nobody is going to grind to Level 100 on the Level 1 Boars that die in one hit and give 3 XP. Because it's freakin' boring and stupid. They might grind 3 or 4 levels... depending on the XP curve... then find the next most effective monster to grind on. So on, and so forth. They move ahead when the XP gain is too minimal to be worth it... and rush forward until they find the next monster they can take out who gives them the most XP. But, again, XP grind is most effectively curbed by simply... making sure stats in combat have very little effectiveness when it comes to winning.

    But, those are my experiences with XP gain and grinding. What I've seen players do. How players have justified this behavior. The reasons I grind, even. So, take it with a grain of salt. :D
     
    #53
  14. Aoi Ninami

    Aoi Ninami Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    485
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    A lot of food for thought there, thank you. Some off-the-cuff responses:

    1. That's an unrealisable ideal, at least for a medium-to-long game. A big source of satisfaction in RPGs is seeing your stats go up and feeling this in terms of being able to one-shot monsters that were a big problem earlier on. That only works if the stats are meaningful. Certainly, for bosses you want skill to play a larger role, and that might mean giving them some tricks that will make them difficult to deal with even for high-level parties; but you can't give them too many instant-death moves or they become unfair. There are occasional bosses that are beatable at Level 1 and still difficult at Level 99 -- such as Ozma from FF9, but that's done by making the battle extremely luck-dependent. Still satisfying to defeat, but I'd prefer not to have more than one boss of that type in a game, and certainly wouldn't make every boss be like that.

    2. Not sure what you mean by "most efficient" here. Certainly not the most efficient in terms of time taken.

    3. It's more that I want boss battles to work as designed, regardless of what the player has done up to that point. Deliberate grinding is one thing, but even among players who don't grind, EXP gained previously will vary depending on the player's actions (for example, one player might go out of their way to explore every nook and cranny of the dungeon, while another just looks around until they find the steps necessary to unlock the boss), and I don't want that to spoil the enjoyment of the boss for either of them.

    Also, you might notice from my avatar that I'm a Touhou fan, so I'm very sympathetic to the idea of players being able to choose a difficulty level that's right for them. But if a developer wants to include that (and it won't work for all games) then it should just be a setting, not something that you can only activate with hours of mindless grinding.
     
    #54
    Countyoungblood likes this.
  15. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    I don't think it's unrealizable. I agree that it's incredibly difficult to maintain at medium to long game. That's pretty much undeniable. So... why not make your stats meaningful in the game? It's what I did. Each point of a stat is useful and worthwhile. But, okay, let's say you don't want to do that. What are some other options? Make equipment give far more stat boons than a Level Up. Equipping a new Sword gives more stats than say... 5 level ups. This doesn't stop the player from grinding, but it minimizes the grinding effort without punishing the player at all. Okay, maybe you don't want to do that either. You could also have skills that bosses employ that don't care about what your stats are. I have regular enemies that can punish a player for having high stats. "Hitting Yourself" is a skill one of my Bandit enemies can use on the player... that takes the player's Attack Power, lands it against the player's Defense Power, and deals damage that way. You can do some pretty cool and fun things just by playing around with damage formulas. Including making an attack do a percentage amount of damage... Or inflicting States on the player that do interesting/unique things. I run a "Zombie" tutorial area in my late game (not many enemies inflict this state because it's so powerful, but if the player fails to learn about how to counter it and to be vigilant in getting rid of it or countering it... things go sideways very fast). "Zombie" berserks a character... gives them 300% Attack... makes them 200% more weak to Fire, attack anyone randomly (not just allies)… and every attack inflicts "Zombie" on someone else. If the player isn't prepared, it spreads across the battlefield quickly and dangerously and renders it into a combat where the player can't do anything except watch the battle and hope their side wins. So, maybe you want a gimmick boss. I remember one from a Final Fantasy game... can't remember which... The boss would do a set amount of damage to a player... it was a little over what a regular enemy hit would do... except they had a skill that simply drained 50% of total HP at the time. If you had 9999 HP, you were then down to 4999 after the first cast. Not deadly, but it hurts. It uses it again and you're down to 2999. Uses it a third time to put you down to 1999. Then, it just does a regular attack against you. Kills a party member. The battle then became a matter of healing up enough to stay above the threshold where it could kill you with a normal attack and not wasting turns and supplies healing up your missing HP since half of it could go missing at any point. Challenging battle when I first encountered it. The boss could also inflict temporary states on party members that make their accuracy 0 or their magic accuracy 0. As stats go up, you just start ignoring them. Creating things that might ignore stats, nullify stats, force the player to waste turns, etcetera. There are lots of ways to maintain challenge in an RPG while not focusing on stats. For most enemies, the only important stat to maintain challenge is simply HP. The longer they stay alive, the more challenging you can make the fight, the more gimmicks the player can see. Or has to deal with.

    This will largely depend on your playerbase. Players who don't have a lot of time on hand... Will have zero patience for your game regardless. They won't grind much at all... But, if they find themselves at a point where the options are "try to figure out the strategy you wanted them to employ to win" and "maybe I should grind to win"... They're more likely to just "quit playing" at that point. Any other player who doesn't have the concern of how much time on hand they have to play... It's more efficient to waste time to grind, as the extra stats makes Resource Management most efficient (basically, you aren't spending any resources... consumables, MP, HP, money). Spend a little bit of time to make yourself immune to the rest of the rigors of standard RPG gameplay.

    I'm sorry, I dunno what Touhou is. ^_^ Never played it. Players will have variable XP depending on where they end up. But, you can de-emphasize stats in lots of ways. I outlined a few of them above. Just got to get creative in doing so. States can actually be a pretty powerful way to do it. You can even create unique incurable states for the duration of a combat that wear off after a set amount of turns. "Magnetize", maybe. A state that emulates the effect in Final Fantasy 1's Magnet Caves... where you do pretty much zero damage to everything in there, if your equipment was made of metal. You'd also take a lot more damage from having metal stuff equipped.

    Plenty of interesting ways to maintain combat challenge without resorting to punishing the player for grinding or being overleveled. Just ignore the player is overleveled.
     
    #55
  16. KoldBlood

    KoldBlood Make It Better Veteran

    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    50
    Location:
    The Void
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    Judging from all of the responses I've seen it seems that DOT states are really the only ones that see substantial effects from not persisting after combat. Other types of states seem to be easier to tweak to be sufficiently powerful in "the moment" to justify their cure after combat but due to the "wait and see" nature of DOT if things like Poison aren't doing absurd amounts of damage or offering some kind of hindrance then players can relatively ignore it in favor of finishing combat.

    Take an RPG that is one of my all time favorites; Super Mario RPG: The Legend of the Seven Stars (maybe you've heard of it?). I absolutely LOVE that game and loved the combat system but I literally ignored ALL of the states in that game except for death. The game gave you plenty of "Able Juice", its state curative, but to this day I have never used even a single one to cure a state since all of them, including death, was cured after combat and they never really caused me any real grief during combat bar one boss that could inflict the "Mushroom" state on your entire party which was essentially paralyze. That's the only instance where I ever bothered equipping an item to protect against a state and only for that one battle. To be fair it was a super easy RPG (it was a Mario game after all) but the states always stuck out to me as a very under utilized feature. Whether or not the persistence of some states could of fixed some of that I can't really say for sure.

    Ironically (or maybe not so ironically), my poison state is actually based on Super Mario RPG's poison state which causes a character to lose 10% of their Current HP (not their Max HP) the only thing that I changed was I made it persistent and made it more aggressive at 20% Current HP a tick. Poison won't outright be your demise in my game but its gonna keep you at low HP and very well may be a contributing factor in your demise if you let it do its thing. The theme I had for poison was to basically just make you easier to kill for the enemy, not really kill you itself and the way I've used the percentage means its not only useful against the player at all levels it can also be used by the player against enemies and even bosses to the same great effect without being completely overpowered.

    Fun Fact: To make my bleed state something more than just a renamed or more powerful version of poison I actually flipped the calculation of the damage tick so that you lose 20% of your Missing HP which has the complete opposite effect of poison where at high HP the player can easily ignore bleeding but as they get closer and closer to death the bleed damage actually starts to ramp up and can very much kill you outright if left untreated.

    Since they persist just winning the battle is not enough. You either need to cure, prevent, out heal, or pull some fancy combat strats to survive but they definitely make their presence known.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
    #56
    Tai_MT likes this.
  17. Wavelength

    Wavelength Pre-Merge Boot Moderator

    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    3,385
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    I don't have time atm to reply to the rest of the cool stuff we were discussing, but real quickly I wanted to say about your hypothetical battle sequence: You proved my point for me!!

    Remember how all this time you were saying that the problem with non-persistent DoTs was that they don't force the player to think about curing them? At a measly -10% HP per turn, your Tank and White Mage decided they had to cure the Poison immediately every time it was inflicted!

    What happens in this example if they don't cure it immediately and try to ride it out until battle's end to save their consumables, or if they are "not prepared" and don't have enough consumables left? They would take another ~93 damage (-12 from ending the battle 3 turns earlier via WM's attacks, but +105 from 15 extra Poison ticks), which would turn this battle into a loss unless the team uses better tactics (such as reducing damage, using offensive spells at the right times, etc.).

    If not quickly cured during combat, the Poison is a game-changer. (And if quickly cured every time it's applied, the "non-persistent Poison presents the same exact threat it does in its persistent form.)

    Therefore, we must conclude (under these assumptions, where heals are useful but not broken) that DoTs present an actual, valid threat to the party that requires them to cure the state - and since you illustrated that they want to cure it immediately, this threat is just as strong as if the DoT were a persistent state. It just comes in a package that is far less inconvenient for the player in standard battles, and presents its danger within battles rather than harming the player between battles.

    Back where the Cure only cost 6 MP the numbers stood more in favor of your argument, but this just goes to show what both of us have agreed on in the past - that reliable, powerful, inexpensive Heals utterly sap any available strategy from combat by easily erasing any other mistakes the player makes. :)
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
    #57
  18. Sixth

    Sixth Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    792
    First Language:
    Hungarian
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    I will be honest, I didn't read most of these giant posts (from what little I saw, many of them are discussing something that's off-topic anyway).
    But I will share my views on these states that stay after the battles.

    I don't like them. At all.
    It's a chore to cure them, and I don't really see any point of these states staying outside battles, other than annoying the player.
    Regardless of my dislike of these states, if a game is otherwise enjoyable, I can tolerate them (the Star Ocean series is a good example, sadly, all states stay there, but I still love those games).

    If the game has real-time combat without any transition to a separate battle screen, it stands to reason that these states stay for their entire duration, or for a shortened duration if no enemies are left in the vicinity. I see no problem with this. It's still a chore, but at least it's understandable and has a point in these games.

    But if the game uses a separate battle screen, making states stay after the battle is not something I would do with my game, that's for sure. There is no risk of dying between battles in these games, so curing these states is really just an annoyance and can't be called as a "feature" in any way, in my opinion, at least.

    About that resource management discussion...
    I am kinda surprised when I see people playing games in videos wasting their hard earned in-game currency on potions and cures instead of saving up for that next gear upgrade. I feel like a weirdo for never buying any consumables in any games I play, no exceptions. I keep the ones I find from battles, and use them if necessary, of course, but I never buy them in shops.
    I also rarely use them, because I would rather return to the next town when I'm low on HP/MP/other restorable (huhh, is this really not an existing word? o_O) resource, and sleep at the inn, than to use these items outside battles. Even if I deduct the inn fee, I still get more than enough gold from the grinding I did between two sleeping. And I do these return rounds until I upgrade all gears available from new shops. I just like one-shotting enemies, so I grind until I can do just that. :D
    So, in a way, this "resource management" is a non-existent thing to me, I guess.
     
    #58
    Countyoungblood likes this.
  19. Tai_MT

    Tai_MT Veteran Veteran

    Messages:
    5,092
    Likes Received:
    4,185
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMMV
    Oh yes, I did prove your point. :D But, ended up realizing that your point had several disadvantages as well just to make it work. I was like, "Yeah, this does the job... But, now we're firmly into territory that Wavelength was railing against".

    It's a pyrrhic victory. But, it's still quite a very interesting victory none-the-less. It actually provides a lot of solid information that can be useful to devs.

    So, the problems I ended up noticing were:

    -The Poison State would only be deadly in fairly lengthy battles. I don't just mean like... a normal boss battle where you spend like 10-12 turns to kill the boss. But, a battle that would have to last twice that length to even put the player in danger at all. Otherwise, having even just two Cures at their disposal would render the fight fairly easy and make some of those turns where Poison was inflicted... a waste of time.
    -You would be popping as many Antidotes in this one instance as you might across a 1 hour dungeon crawl through a standard "poison tutorial dungeon". Or... maybe even more.
    -If the characters are given access at all to anything even remotely more damaging than what they have... the ability to end combat even quicker... Poison ceases to be a threat or worth curing. A player need only out-level the content to render the state a moot point. In most JRPG's... or even Western RPGs... Players out-leveling the content is... well... it's the norm.
    -To make a DoT even remotely useful in a system that removes states after combat, you have to severely hinder the ability to heal at all. You could restrict heals via MP, but if the player uses consumables in place of those heals... you're left with the absolute same issue you had when MP Heals were cheap. You would have to plan to make Consumable Heals as expensive and restrictive as the MP based ones. If an MP Heal recovers only 35 HP, but the baseline Potion costs 100 Gold and heals 50 HP, the player will carry it, and then you're back to the same problem... Unless you're restricting Gold as badly as you're restricting MP. Most RPG's actually give players a massive excess of Currency, so all you've done is trade one type of Cure for Another.
    -Equipment that would protect from Poison would be useless across the entire game... Except against a Boss that lasts these 24 turns. If the player had access to such a piece of equipment and used it for this boss fight... The threat of the Boss is gone and the battle can be won a lot quicker. It would render the entire Gimmick of the Boss "moot".
    -To even make Poison a threat at 10% in a system where it is automatically removed after each combat... You effectively have to rebalance an entire game. You have to remove several RPG staples that players use pretty frequently. You essentially have to throw away the manual on RPG design and create an entirely new way of doing things, just to get it to work in the way in which we've agreed it should work (posing enough of a threat inside of combat that the player feels the need to cure it).

    I mean... there's a lot of exploitative areas of the RPG here to exploit for the player. The dev would have to close those up. Or, heavily restrict the player's freedom and abilities. For the sake of a single DoT. Rework an entire game... For one DoT. Rebalance an entire game... For one DoT.

    Yep, your point is an exceptionally valid one. You're right, it does make Poison more deadly in such a system. Very deadly, in fact. But, look at all the consequences of that across the rest of the RPG. Even just in terms of extra work a dev would have to do to make sure it was balanced... Just... Wow. It's not something I would want to balance.

    I wouldn't want to rely on encounters that take 24 turns, because the player is going to feel like that's a slog.
    I wouldn't want to rely on severely limiting the level/stats of the player just to make sure a DoT was always deadly and warranted use of curing it inside of combat.
    I wouldn't want to severely nerf means of healing up HP just to make sure that a DoT was deadly and warranted use of curing it inside of combat.
    I wouldn't want to give Poison only to enemies who would be able to use it effectively... which is pretty much nobody (except those long slog bosses!).
    I wouldn't want to have to figure out how you tell the player they need Antidotes in a system where it's only a problem in 1 of every 200 combats. I have no idea how you'd signpost that or communicate it to the player without simply saying, "Look, this boss will kill you if you don't have at least 15 Antidotes. You are guaranteed to lose without 15 antidotes. Come back when you have them.", since they will not have been trained at all that Poison will Romp them in this instance when the rest of combat has taught them that it's a non-issue.
    I wouldn't want to be forced, as a dev, to slap a "Full Recovery Event" and a mandatory save before each Boss room that has a DoT, just to give the player a chance at winning the fight.
    I wouldn't want to try to determine the impact of the player popping 15 Antidotes in 10 minutes of combat on the player, when I could make them pop 15 Antidotes over the course of a 25-35 minute dungeon.
    I wouldn't want to have to restrict what kinds of equipment I create, because I know the player would find certain kinds to be useless or worthless due to the "cure after battle" mechanic... or the "this would only be useful in a single battle" mechanic we've created here.
    I wouldn't want to have to restrict how many free Treasures I give a player, because if I'm giving them Potions and Antidotes in chests frequently enough, then they've nullified the point of restricting that MP usage.

    I just wouldn't want to have to design an entire game around a single State that will likely only ever present a challenge to the player in a single instance.

    Personally? Using the "Recover from all states when combat ends"? I'd rather just remove all DoT's altogether, so I don't have to redesign my entire game just to make one of them work.

    But, that's up to Personal Preference.

    Plus, I like DoT's. Because they're fairly versatile in my opinion. I don't want to design an RPG without them. So, I'd just never cure all my States after combat. Personal Preference.
     
    #59
  20. Wavelength

    Wavelength Pre-Merge Boot Moderator

    Messages:
    4,054
    Likes Received:
    3,385
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    First Language:
    English
    Primarily Uses:
    RMVXA
    (Quote truncated to highlight parts I'm replying to; emphasis mine)
    Interesting defense.

    I think it's an unfair platform to argue that the Poison wasn't effective here because it 'took 24 turns to become a deadly threat'. In your example, the boss was dealing an average of less than 6HP of damage to the party per non-poison skill (or about 5% of the party's total HP). Without poison, it would have taken the boss almost 300% as long to defeat the party as it would with poison and no antidotes - raised to 500%(!) if the boss ever manages to poison both party members at once, which is very reasonable.

    In other words, Poison took a long time to present a total kill threat in this example because your boss was dealing so little damage elsewhere. Poison needed to pick up like 75% of the load (which is kind of silly for a single state when compared to all other boss actions), so of course it took a long time. If the boss were dealing closer to 20 damage per turn, Poison will help the boss get the job done much faster if it's not cured. (Then, as the designer, you'd probably want to design the battle around fewer turns.)

    Worth noting is your point that in regular battles, the Poison won't last long, and won't be worth curing since it goes away after battle. True to an extent, but not completely. If the boss is only managing 6HP of damage per turn, it's fair to assume that regular encounters will do less than 3HP per turn (even at full strength). Assume the mob does 3, 2, then 1 damage and the battle is over in 3 turns. Also assume they apply one instance of Poison on Turn 1. That Poison will tick at least twice over the course of the battle, for 14 HP - raising total damage dealt by the mob from 6 to 20. Depending on the economics of items, this might still be worth curing immediately. If the game is balanced around 6 HP per mob becoming a chronic threat eventually, then surely the wise player will want to avoid taking 20 damage per mob!

    The rest of your construction is solid, but with the "24 turns" objection scuttled, I believe that most of your conclusions, including the ones that assert the game would need to be greatly rebalanced around the DoT state, fall as well. And the few that stand, such as the points on healing and treasures, would also rear their heads in any design where the DoT is persistent after battle (let me know if you disagree on one of them).
     
    #60
    Countyoungblood likes this.

Share This Page