'Types' Discussion

[S17R]

For me personally it seems weird to not have these "physical" types, the slime example is a great one and I can't imagine just one physical element, I feel like that's taking out too many possibilities, especially on games where your characters are allowed to equip multiple types of weapons. But on the other hand, it has the risk of overloading your game with elements and elements that may not be necessary, creating unnecessary complexity. However, despite the quantity of elements, whether it's just a few or two dozens, the key is to manage each element correcly so they come into play sooner or later. Someone above mentioned Pokemon, and it's actually a great example. Even though Pokemon has too many types (18? And Pokemon with double typing? Seriously?) at least the game manages to integrate them all, so none of those elements feels like it's left out. (Well, maybe Fairy type but it's a new one so I guess it could be an exception)


And making these physical types allows the attack command to have more meaning in battles. If you have only one or two physical elements that your weapons will use, and your skills have all the magical elements to get a much bigger advantage in battles, then those two aspects are unbalanced.

 

[jonthefox]

@S17R  Just curious why can't you imagine only one physical element?  In the slime example, you could equally argue that the texture of a slime makes it resistant to being pierced, or that its gel-like texture just absorbs blunt force attacks and would require being sliced apart by something extremely sharp.     I find it much easier to just give it an overall high physical resistance rather than individual physical types.    And how do you categorize a basic long sword, which can technically be used to pierce, slash, OR blunt force attack?   I feel like using different physical element types--if you're going to use them on top of varying magic elements--creates needless complexity and doesn't really make the combat more realistic or enjoyable.  

 

[aesorian]

To be honest, it's all about what feels appropriate/fun/interesting to your game. That said I'm thinking of having different Elemental resistances and making them key to my battle system (although I'm still working out the kinks). The basic plan is as follows:


Change the 6 Attributes to the following: 
4 "Aspects" (Elemental, Alchemical, Physical & Spiritual) - These Aspects have a max of 50
Initiative (Replaces AGI), Luck/Charisma/Some Kind of Out of Combat Stat


Each Aspect has 3 "Types" in it, except Elemental which has 4.


*Elemental -- Fire, Wind, Water, Earth


*Alchemical -- Putrifaction, Transmutation then either Electricity or Steam 


*Spiritual -- Shadow, Aetheric and Dragon, Beast, Wood or Plant


* Physical -- Blunt, Piercing and Slashing


Then each skill formula would be something like:

(Base Damage * ("Aspect" *0.1)) 

So, for example:


Fireball
ELEMENTAL "FIRE" Spell
Damage Formula: (50 * (ELEMENTAL*0.1))


Finally, all defenses would come from the varies "Type" resistances. Allowing for an interesting Horizontal Progression. Instead of the difference between Armor A and Armor B being purely Statistical, aka one having More Defense than the other) it gives equipment of a more practical progression path with it being useful against different enemies, so no single weapon/armor/skill is ever the definitive best. Especially with the type of game-play I'm looking at doing, a more Roguelite-esque shorter game with lots of character customization. 

 

[S17R]

@jonthefox Probably for the personal need of specifying that you "cut" with a sword and not making some "physical damage" which is pretty broad and abstract, at least for me. For example, I have plans to feature guns in my game, and putting their damage as physical doesn't convince me at all. I could use ranged damage, yes, but putting a weakness to gun shots instead of a weakness to long-ranged attacks makes more sense to me.


On one hand, as I said, it feels like a missed oportunity to not take advantage of those types. On the other hand, as you said, it can create needless complexity and that's something you should always avoid when creating types and elements, and games in general xD. I prefer to avoid things that end being useless, so right now I'm making the types system all over again so I can come up with something more balanced.

 

[SpacemanFive]

Just thought a bit more about physical elements, before trying something in my current project. I'm wondering about something now.


In something where physical elements are split into several more realistic types, should guns use a separate "shot" type from "pierce", since they might behave a bit differently from spears and arrows? I mean for example, weren't guns one of the main reasons people don't use full plate armor anymore, since they could penetrate it? Or would that just be an extremely high powered version of pierce?


Currently, I'm thinking it might at least warrant its own physical element due to how it behaves a bit differently than arrow and spear type piercing, even if it's just a much higher powered version of the concept. Unless I can make it behave a bit differently on the same type via different degrees of armor piercing bonuses or something. (Although I'd still like some armor or defenses to be bullet-resistant.)

 

[TheoAllen]

Actually, elements and such are depends on the game scale (and mechanic). If you need to have different type of pierce and shot, then go for it. I mean, you have some enemies that more effective to shoot than to thrust by spear. Just to make sure you need to balance these two. In my game, I don't need it because I only have gun as pierce damage (and it also a small scale game, a dungeon crawler).