Yeah, if the bosses and players were balanced then games would be much more easily ported to multiplayer situations. This would also give the game a much larger number of play hours. This is something that Golden Sun for the GBA tested out and I think it worked rather well: Players could have a link battle against their friend''s in-game party. Now, this game''s bosses were not balanced to the players, but for some reason the link battles still fought out incredibly well.

In any case. If bosses were the same as other players, then the fights would still be hard, and battles against friends would also have the difficulty as though it were a boss battle for both players.

Well there are RPGs with good combat strategies. Like in Chrono Trigger, there were alot of boss where you had to destroy there guard before the boss or not, and the interaction with the enviromment was pretty good to. And there were alot of ennemys teamed up. About ennemys using items, in Mario RPG, one of the first boss uses a whole stash of items, wich is pretty nice because you feel like if he''s more <> and he looks more like a competitor. In the same game, theres a part where you fight agaisnt an other party where there''s a healer, a bomber, and you have to kill them in a precise order. So you can chose, or you train, slay monster till you are strong enought to kill them or you figure a strategy to kill them.

http://newgatetech.topcities.com/

Consider:

If you are in the position that you can decide the outcome of a battle before it starts (by scaling the strength of the enemy) then you are making battles meaningless. Unless there is a bit more depth to a battle, it is just part of the story with the player being forced to click on buttons.

Whether or not this is a bad thing is a different story. Some of the most popular games are full of insignificant decisions which seem meaningful. Take a look at solitaire and put together a game tree for it showing all the possible moves at any one time. You might start with a couple of different moves you can do, once you have done them, you turn over a new card which might open a new option, or it might not. If it does, then it is always taken as you want to get cards out of the pile and onto the table. The actual choices you make are very limited, but... what is the most played computer game world wide?

Trying is the first step towards failure.

quote:

---

Original post by Neosmyle
In most RPGs I can think of (notable exceptions: Tactics [FF/Ogre]) the characters would kill themselves in one hit easy, and the bosses do crap damage, but have insane HP. What the heck is up with that? I mean, boss = 1000000 hp, 1000 damage. player = 10000 hp, 25000 damage. etc.

Another thing is that characters are usually in parties while the bosses are alone. Which is also strange. Why wouldnt the boss have friends? If bosses teamed up, the player would be screwed.

---

Agree. I don''t find it fun when playing a game like this. This is one of the reason why I don''t like Japanese RPGs because all of them are like this (except zelda) ! It is the same old gameplay. I wonder if bosses even needed in RPG? OK, maybe some, but as long as it fits the story. I notice some RPG games just give you a gigantic monster came out of nowhere (this can be considered a boss). You defeat it after 4 out of 5 of your chars dead. It''s gone. NPCs don''t even know about that monster.

---

My compiler generates one error message: "does not compile."

quote:

---

Original post by Roof Top Pew Wee
Some of us like to see our characters become the ulitmate power house, and then we can go out and destroy the weakling monsters with a nice 9999 hit. However, some of us see sitting around for a few hours holding the button down so we can make numbers dance around so we can finally progress in the story boring.

---

As soon as you offer 2 fundamentally different approaches to gameplay in a single game, you''re gonna have trouble with balance

I remember someone taunting me cos she had level 99 FF6 characters and mine were all 40 or 50 when I finished... something like that, anyway. I had to do enough mindless levelling anyway, so why I would want to do another 50 levels for the sake of it I do not know. Obviously some people enjoy that, but...

Assuming we''re talking about bosses here... perhaps the methods to be used for defeating them should come from hints or items found as part of following the plot. A certain minimum level of statistical advancement will be necessary to stand a chance, but the main thing should be ''knowing your enemy'' and applying your character(s) properly. Superfluous levelling-up could be viewed as a way of reducing the chance of you dying, but not necessarily making it easier to defeat the enemy - that will involve finding the weak spot.

quote:

---

First of all, don''t make a command based game. Doing so limits the player''s movement, and can get rather complex menu systems if the player is allowed to do a lot of stuff. Incorporate a system where the player actually controls the character. Like Zelda, or Secret of Mana. Sure these systems aren''t perfect, but in Zelda, I never left a dungeon to look for more heart pieces when I couldn''t beat an end guy.

---

The problem is that this starts to detract from the essence of what a lot of people look for in an RPG. I used to love some of the action-RPGs (anyone remember Golden Axe Warrior? Not Golden Axe, btw) but you''re just replacing one sort of tedium and/or required skill with another, generally.

quote:

---

Another option that I have yet to see incorporated is more involved spells. I''m going to use some of the folder Final Fantasies as an example, since I am familiar with them. When it came to end guys, none of the effect spells did anything.

---

Yeah. I''d like to see magic used in more combinations. There were some nice emergent effects that I saw in FF6 (such as needing to cast Reflect on some of your guys in order to bounce attack spells off them), and more along those lines would be nice, instead of just starting out with 10 different ways of dealing damage and having bosses get progressively immune to more and more of them.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

I second Kylotan opinion, and I''ll even go further.
IMO bosses should be more like those in The Legend of Zelda series.

Different tactics you must deduce from the boss, or get infos about during the game.

I also think magic should be a way to AVOID battle.

But when a battle occur, it should be a dramatic event, and I''ll recommend Grandia 2 battle system.
It''s involve planning, strategy and some nerves too.
(Describing it would be rather long, but I''ll try if anyone is interested, Grandia 2 is available on PC, Dreamcast and PS2.)

I don''t think a minimal level should be put at all, my equation is really the best IMO.

Last point: do not EVER make a murder based experience point system, murder should never be rewarded.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

This is a very long post from a non-member, so feel free to skim or skip it.

With regard to a non-murder-based experience system, anyone play Kengo II for the PS2? Not a great game, but worth looking at. It''s basically a tournament fighter, but it has same really neat RPG elements. Your character is training in Kendo or Kenjutsu or something, and he lives this little warrior monk life, training all the time, every day. Each morning you decide what you want to do that day, and whatever training exercise you choose has an effect on your stats. You can go stand under a rushing waterfall to build your stamina, or meditate to boost your mental fortitude, or take your bokken out and practice sword techniques. Then, of course, you go out and fight a series of duels and practice fights to win fame and glory and blah, blah, blah. Game: meh. Character growth system: neat.

The "training" concept was something I''d never encountered before, and it made me want to play the game far more than the game itself warranted. I''d like to see more games emply that sort of a system. Experience points are a little out of date, if you ask me. An interesting alternative is to simply make stats totally dependent upon inventory. It''s been used, and well, but many people really like the RPG level-raising.

I''d like to go on record as saying that I absolutely hate it when enemies level up to match you. Final Fantasy Tactics did this in random encounters, but plot-related battles were always set at where they thought you should be, experience-wise. I''ve also never liked linear RPG''s, where there are parts of the map that have chipmunks capable of killing and eating any boss from the first half of the game (Final Fantasy series, I''m looking at you). Escape Velocity (Mac only, Ambrosia Software) handled this pretty well. It was a galactic trading/battle game, and there were parts of the galaxy that you didn''t venture into on account of the pirates. You stick to systems with powerful governments to protect you, until you''re tough enough or hire an escort tough enough for the longer runs and riskier jobs. Had a good progression to it, but required a lot of battles to take place that didn''t directly involve the player. A difficult thing to simulate in an RPG.

As to Magic, I think that Ogre Battle 64 (the most annoyingly time-consuming game ever) could offer some inspiration. The offensive spells of magic-users could, with practice and morale and about seven of the other fifty billion variables in Ogre Battle, be combined into either powered-up forms of the spells or new hybrid spells. Two fireball-casting wizards could produce a hella huge fireball, or a fireball guy and a lightning guy could produce something totally different. It''s a pretty cool system, although the battle engine is a real drag.

Speaking of battle engines, I hear a lot about how modern RPG''s should have more action elements in them. I think it''s important to remember that RPG''s are essentially escapist fantasy. The outcome of a fight should have more to do with the abilities of the character than with the abilities of the player. What I prefer is action games with RPG elements in them. Action games are immersive and fast-paced, while RPG''s are like raising a pet and teaching it to do tricks. The combination of the two gives the gamer a sense of self-improvement.

The best moment in an action game is when you use your mad jumping skills to beat down an enemy that really shouldn''t have been beatable. Everyone loves beating Contra by virtue of lightning-fast reflexes and hand-eye coordination. For an RPG''er, bliss comes from commanding such a mighty character that no enemy, not even Kefka, with his stupid little wings and absolutely obnoxious magic powers, can stand against him. Action games are games of precision, while RPG''s are games of cultivation. A good combination of the two is something like the original Legend of Zelda. When Link busts out his Magical Sword and his Magical Shield and his Red Ring and his Silver Arrows and his twenty heart containers, there''s nothing that can stop him. At the same time, a skilled player, like me when I was eight, could reach and defeat Gannon with a wooden sword and a butt-ugly green outfit, by virtue of my own two thumbs.

That''s the middle ground. Make a game in which a player can get by on either his own merits or on those of his character. Let him buy the armor that lets him laugh at the strongest enemies, or let him rub his thumbs bloody avoiding damage. Everyone gets their kicks, the game doesn''t suffer, and the tough points in the game can either be beaten by practice or by character improvement.

quote:

---

Original post by Roof Top Pew Wee
An example I would give for this is Magic. Sure the card game is dead
[edited by - Roof Top Pew Wee on November 29, 2002 3:49:43 PM]

---

Point of fact: I met a guy a couple of months ago who supports himself by entering Magic tournaments and selling the cards he gets as prizes. The card game is far from dead.

Just to get back on topic: one thing I''ve noticed increasingly with the Final Fantasy games as I play more of them is that most times, fights are just formalities that take up time rather than a meaningful opportunity to practise playing skills: in a lot of cases my actions either don''t affect the outcome of the fight (a monster you can''t beat, you can''t beat; a monster you can walk all over won''t do you noticeable damage even if you do nothing for a few rounds) or are clearly the wrong choice (this may not be true for beginners). So, for example, facing a moderately challenging (at current level) boss, my only real choices are when to heal against when to draw magic/steal items/attack depending on what the boss has worth getting. The choice of attack method is generally dictated by which party member''s turn it is (FFX changes this slightly by allowing party members to switch in and out, but once everyone has had a turn to get the experience, the choice of party members is essentially just a choice of attack method) and generally it''s clear which attack method to use in any given circumstance. The actual decisions that affect the outcome of the fight are generally taken on the equipment screens etc between fights, and when deciding whether or not to do what my friends call "mincing" - in FF games run around in small circles somewhere where random encounters show up simply in order to gain experience/items/magic and enhance character survival against the next boss.

Personally, I would prefer for there to be more of a skill element in the individual fights - as in Zelda (which IMO isn''t an RPG but an adventure game since rather than skills, you have abilities based solely on which items you carry/equip. OK, hearts increase, and so does magic meter, but again, that''s by scripted items rather than any generic training effects). Pen and paper RPGs have to use a very absract combat system simply because there''s no simple way of incorporating player actions as skills while in computer RPGs, it is at least possible if not easy. For example, in a pen and paper RPG, in deciding whether or not I hit someone when I use my longbow to attack, very few gaming groups will have access to a bow and archery range with which to determine the outcome, never mind what happens when you try simulating a longbow +3 with arrows +4 or whatever. In a computer game, it''s quite easy to implement a point and click archery system and even include variable accuracy by having a wobble (or a random factor at time of launch, though that tends to annoy players more). For example, Deus Ex (which IMO is an RPG since it did have an abstract experience system - that''s not the only thing I look for to decide whether something is or isn''t an RPG, but it''s a major factor) used player skill as a major outcome determinant in any firefight, but also incorporated character skill - weapon damage, range, reload time and wobbliness is determined by a combination of character skill in that weapon type and equipment modifications to the specific weapon. Also, in Deus Ex, experience was based solely upon exploration and puzzle solving rather than combat - in fact, most times combat was better avoided where possible since items dropped tended not to compensate for damage recieved and ammo expended. I ended up killing most enemies simply because I prefered to explore thoroughly, meaning they''d get in my way if I didn''t kill them, but where possible, I went for stealthy kills.

There's a lot to say here, so I'll be damned if I keep it brief.

quote:

---

There are a few solutions to such a problem. First of all, don't make a command based game. Doing so limits the player's movement, and can get rather complex menu systems if the player is allowed to do a lot of stuff. Incorporate a system where the player actually controls the character. Like Zelda, or Secret of Mana. Sure these systems aren't perfect, but in Zelda, I never left a dungeon to look for more heart pieces when I couldn't beat an end guy. I would rethink my strategy, and eventually I could beat the guy. The fact is that Zelda is also a pretty basic game when it comes to strategy. You use an item in a certain way to do something to the end guy, revealing his weakness and so on. There could be a lot more strategy to end guys, and with direct control, the possibilities are endless.

---

This is the direction in which RPGs need to go if they are to become more strategic games. I'll say more about this later. Until then, bear in mind that many non-action games, such as Baldur's Gate or FFX, involve quite a bit of strategy.

quote:

---

I also think that enemies should heal themselves more often and use effect magic to their advantage in fights. Very few enemies in the RPGs I have played heal themselves, and they certainly don't heal themselves as frequently as players do, it's as though they aren't even trying to survive the fight. I know an enemy that frequently healed itself could be annoying and quite difficult, but it may be a good idea for some boss enemies, this way they would not require extreme amounts of HP, they just heal themselves the same way players do.

---

I agree. All enemies should have an inventory which they can draw items from in the same manner that players do.

quote:

---

An example I would give for this is Magic. Sure the card game is dead

---

Err... I play Magic: TG, and so do most of my better friends. The game isn't dead, but it has gone far beyond fad status and can no longer be treated as other fad. Your local super-multi-market doesn't carry Magic cards anymore because they're not "cool" enough. This irritates me greatly, because Magic: TG still sells better in the U.S. than Yugi-Oh or, nowadays, Pokemon, and doesn't deserve to be confined to comic shops.

quote:

---

I ended up killing most enemies simply because I prefered to explore thoroughly, meaning they'd get in my way if I didn't kill them, but where possible, I went for stealthy kills.

---

This is exactly how I played Deus Ex. The trade-off in terms of peace of mind (knowing where everything is) is well worth the trail of bodies you leave behind, and is far more interesting than any XP reward.
---

People get sick of me using my own ideas as examples, but they're usually good ones, so you'll have to bear with me for a while.

I'm currently working on a tactical-action-RPG called Pentaverse. Pentaverse is a tactical RPG (like FFT, Ogre Battle, etc.), but you always control at least one character directly, in a manner quite similar to Secret of Mana/SOM2. The game is, of course, NOT turn-based, and party size varies from one to sixty characters depending on player preference and troop availablity. Handling XP for such a potentially massive system is rather difficult and runs the risk of becoming boring, so I've worked up a semi-unique little system of my own:

XP gaining
The murder system doesn't work in a tactical RPG of this kind, because XP gains in a murder system are based on who "helped" kill what monster. It's rather difficult to determine what exactly it means for one to "help" in a battle system that is essentially a very well-controlled free-for-all. For example, if you send an archer or a team of archers away from the main group to pick off the enemy mass-healer who is making the enemy knights unkillable, they will miss the XP that they should get for making it possible for your warriors to kill those knights. On the other hand, without your own warriors holding the knights in place, the archers would never have reached the healer. They would have been attacked by the knights, you see. Therefore, your warriors deserve partial credit for killing off the cleric, as they made it possible.

Now, to make this even more of a mess, I'm going to switch sides. For the sake of argument, let's make the archers nonexistent for the moment. This means that the warriors are most likely obliterated by the knights, who are backed up their healer. This is all well and good, except that their humble cleric gets NO experience, even though she was the primary factor in destroying the warriors! This is supremely unfair, and penalizes the use of healers. In a game where one's party can be split into groups without any sort of arbitrary "party formation" screen, the murder system is definitely outdated.

Obviously, any action involved with a character who affects the slain enemy in any way should be considered a "kill share"-worthy action. Through this system, healing the healer who healed someone who took a bit of damage from a goblin who was later slain by another ally would earn you a full share of XP. And why not? Healing is just as fruitful an activity as attackin is, right?

Another aspect of the murder system that bothers me is that it precludes characters from learning skills through experience. Since you won't always use ALL of your troops in every battle, shoultdn't troops ordered to stand back and observe the battle gain a smaller amount of XP? Through this method, a group of first-level troops watching you fight an high-level evil overlord one-on-one in mortal combat would gain experience by watching the fight.

Another problem with the standard systems is that almost none of them, save for certain Square and those based on P&P RPGs, allow for multiclassing and diversification of limited skills. This is an outrage. Characters should not have to speciallize in a single school of skills for their entire lives, nor should they be allowed to choose from a diverse set of skills and spells with no penalties. My system allows the player to specify up to four classes being currently raised for each character. That character gains CP (class points) in the specified classes each time he or she gains a character level. 12 CP are gained per level, split evenly among all "equipped" classes. When any individual class's CP total reaches 12, the character gains a class level in that class, raising HP, etc., according to that classes standards, plus a number of skill points.

Skill points are the real core of the system. They can be used to purchase a skill, improve that skill further, or, once a certain degree of ability has been attained with that skill, to improve one's ability to teach that skill to others (resulting in reduced skill point costs). Also, once a skill has been mastered to a certain extent, the character gets a permanent skill bonus with all directly related skills. The unique part of this system is that, while ALL skills to are tied to a certain related class, all skills can be purchased regardless of whether one has levels in that class. For example, upon gaining a paladin class level, one gains 2500 SP for the sole purpose of purchasing paladin-specific skills, 2500 SP for cleric skills, 2500 SP for fighter skills, and 2500 "free" SP that can be spent upon the skills of ANY class, including the ones mentioned above.

That's all that I can think of now. There's probably more, but you don't want to hear it.

EDIT: Sh*t!! I forgot which thread I was replying to and replied to the alternative XP system by accident! Oh well, some of it's still relevant.

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" - mad cultist, in passing

[edited by - DuranStrife on December 6, 2002 11:18:40 AM]

Anyone remember FF2? Not FF4, FF2. Taking damage would encourage a character to gain higher HP and vitality, a sort of "heal stronger" principle, while hacking with a sword would build both physical strength and dexterity, as well as bolstering your skill with that weapon. If you never use magic, your magic power and intelligence would actually atrophy, so if you use a guy as a big dumb jock then sooner or later he''ll BECOME a big dumb jock. Magic users that hide in the back get very smart and cast powerful spells, but won''t exactly go around asking chicks to punch them in the stomach.

In FF2, the system was slow and tedious, and many players (myself included) lost interest after a little while. An RPG character doesn''t really live in real-time, and so you can assume that your mages are pumping iron at night to maintain their physiques and your knights are studying all their old spell books by candlelight and practicing "cure" and "shell" between battles, so they don''t forget how to do it.

In a more action-based, real-time universe, degredation of neglected skills can be a reality. I picked up my cornet (it''s like a trumpet) the other week, not having played it in about four months, and had nowhere near the range, tone, or endurance that I had before. Why wouldn''t an RPG character who''d been training with an axe for eight simulated months get a little foggy on his ice spells? Or get rusty on some of the more advanced sword techniques?

Rather than awarding XP for simply being involved in a fight, and increasing all of a character''s statistics when the XP reaches a pre-set level, why not have characters get better at the things they do, and worse at the things they don''t do? Replace "experience" with "practice", or even "training". That would also lend a little more interest to "mincing" (terrific term, by the way). Rather than wandering around looking for larger enemies to fight, find something you think you can handle, but make your knight take it on alone, using only fire magic. Let the big lug shoot sparks at a slime for a few minutes, until either the slime dies or he can''t summon any more fire and has to chop it to death. Then set your healer up with a spear and have her take on a goblin. When she''s bleeding badly enough, an archer can pick off the baddy and the healer can patch herself up.

This way, even the stongest characters can have a challenge, and more character specialization can take place. Who needs a whole black mage when you can have your paladin bone up on lightning spells for those pesky treants? It won''t take a lot of time out of the paladin''s sword and shield regimen, and will improve his understanding of magic, which will in turn boost his resistance to enemy spells. Everybody wins.

Also, categorizing characters into classes, like knight, berserker, priest, etc. would be less critical here. If you dress them like a monk and train them like a monk, then by God they''re a monk.

At the same time, how can someone be a master both of holy magic and evil magic? Surely there''s some equilibrium to be reached. The Ogre Battle alignment system seems to help out here. High alignment can allow a character to learn "good" magic more readily, and invoke skills and powers associated with goodness and order, while a low-alignment person would have little aptitude for such skills. The converse would also be true, of course.