quote:

---

Original post by BiggerStaff

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

We''ve already covered this, the fact is that you cant have a real time, turn based, rpg battle system.

---

I''d argue that Baldur''s Gate is pretty close - it''s in realtime, but there are turns, and if you''ve got a ''quicker'' weapon you can attack more often than with a ''slow'' weapon. For a turn-based battle system, fights feel pretty realistic.

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

I do agree that exp systems dint often make sense, why can you slice though 100 zombies and then suddenly be better at lock picking, that doesn''t make sence...in real life. This is a computer game, it cant be 100% real, as ive already said, if all computer games were 100% real then we wouldn''t have any first person shooter or a number of other games including tetris btw.

---

Well there''s a key difference there, and that is the lack of logic. No, Tetris isn''t realistic in the sense that it doesn''t represent the real world, but it is entirely consistent within its own logic. However, a system where killing zombies makes you better at picking locks is irritating because it doesn''t fit with its own logic. Or anyone''s, for that matter

---

I''m designing a game final fantasy style, do you relies how ridicules it would look if it was done bulders gate combat style. Also as the above poster said, heritage comes into play with such games like FF plus they are not the only ones ever to use that system.

Ok so maybe the logic is inconsistent but its not like i agree with it, in my game skills like steal will be getting better with use, not with EXP levels. Same with magic too, it will get better depending on the MEXP it gets from usage, ditto with special skill crystals which will get SEXP which again will be gained from use.

RPG: I''m going to rewrite this genera even if it kills me.

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

BiggerStaff - Not rhetorical, i really am interested in what you would consider a good system.

---

Oop - sorry, forgot to reply to that bit! Well like I said earlier, games like Dungeon Keeper and SimCity I think kept everything satisfactorily abstracted. I thought that the system in Revenant was good. I was very impressed by the feature in Black and White where your alignment was represented by your temple'a appearance - good and it was all light and shining, evil and it went all red and spiky. Genius. This didn't just communicate the player's alignment, it actually made the game better .

As for the Sword +1, +3 vs Goblins problem, maybe you could do a couple of things. Firstly, you could illustrate graphically that it seems to be doing more damage against certain monsters. A green flash comes up whenever it hits a goblin, say. And then as Anonymous said, maybe NPC's could allude to its nature, rather than flat out tell you. Perhaps subtle hints could be put in the weapon's backstory - maybe it was once the fabled blade of "BiggerStaff GoblinCrusher" or something. The player could then put all this together and fathom that it's a sword which is particularly good against goblins. I don't think I'd need to know any more than that.

Now I can see that all these suggestions are purely cosmetic, and are simply veiling the maths rather than presenting it in a novel way. But it might be a start.

[edited by - BiggerStaff on March 15, 2004 3:00:38 PM]

My two cents on a few topics in this thread:

Leveling up -- Certainly you can create a continuous leveling system instead of a discrete leveling system. However, I think players like to have a goal to be a certain level. It''ll give them a better sense of accomplishment.

Final Fantasy -- I really like that they show you the numbers. I get great satisfaction when I see that 9999 damage come up.

Diablo 2 -- This game has a lot of numbers, but in the actually gameplay you don''t see them. You see your HP and MP spheres but not the number (unless you put the mouse over it). You also don''t see exactly how much damage you do per hit, just the bad guy''s life bar. I think this game does it right. When setting up your char you can figure out the numbers but it doesn''t clog up the gameplay.

The last thing I want to see in an RPG are outcomes of dice rolls.

quote:

---

Original post by BiggerStaff

quote:

---

Original post by Siolis

BiggerStaff - Not rhetorical, i really am interested in what you would consider a good system.

---

Oop - sorry, forgot to reply to that bit! Well like I said earlier, games like Dungeon Keeper and SimCity I think kept everything satisfactorily abstracted. I thought that the system in Revenant was good. I was very impressed by the feature in Black and White where your alignment was represented by your temple''a appearance - good and it was all light and shining, evil and it went all red and spiky. Genius. This didn''t just communicate the player''s alignment, it actually made the game better .

As for the Sword +1, +3 vs Goblins problem, maybe you could do a couple of things. Firstly, you could illustrate graphically that it seems to be doing more damage against certain monsters. A green flash comes up whenever it hits a goblin, say. And then as Anonymous said, maybe NPC''s could allude to its nature, rather than flat out tell you. Perhaps subtle hints could be put in the weapon''s backstory - maybe it was once the fabled blade of "BiggerStaff GoblinCrusher" or something. The player could then put all this together and fathom that it''s a sword which is particularly good against goblins. I don''t think I''d need to know any more than that.

Now I can see that all these suggestions are purely cosmetic, and are simply veiling the maths rather than presenting it in a novel way. But it might be a start.

[edited by - BiggerStaff on March 15, 2004 3:00:38 PM]

---

Well if you cant remove it {which i think we''ve covered} then you may as well make it look like something else and cover it up.

I do concur about the back story hints and the bit about getting npcs involved by flash''s on monsters seems a bit iffy to me.

maybe something like a form a critical hit which is displayed differently or making it a slightly different design to other weapons of its kind would help.

EG if you had a long sword with a green edged blade and its supposed to have more effectiveness against goblins or some type of monster such as "all green type monsters" or something. The game doesn''t tell you that but it dose indicate more effectiveness and cite interest.

quote:

---

Original post by VThornheart
I think the real trouble comes when you show the player too much of "what''s behind the veil". You need to hide things from the player, while giving them some things.

---

This comment is very perceptive. I''m beginning to realize that seeing numbers for things like stats and combat is a valuable tool for letting the player understand the metaphysic of the game world. VThornheart has cut to the quick of the idea that the "+X (against enemy B)" example is hinting at.

In order to effectively inhabity a game world, a player must have an understanding of how it works. For PnP players, it makes sense to use a system with which they are familiar, because it makes it possible to "jump right in" and play the game naturally, without having to learn all new algorithms.

Games like Ogre Battle and Vagrant Story are difficult to learn precisely because they use unorthodox systems, and the player is required to learn them swiftly and keep up with them throughout the game. In Ogre Battle, even a good strategist can suddenly find himself at the van of an ineffective army, with little hope of sufficient reform. In Vagrant Story, a diligent RPG''er might find himself paradoxically harming his skills by fighting monsters in droves, a tecnique which has served him well throughout his gaming career.

If you are going to hide the nuts and bolts of the game, and thus blindfold the player to the laws that govern the world he''s competing in, then it is your obligation to make it possible for that player to "feel" his way through it. Simple substitutions like "Great Broadsword of Wolf''s Bane" for "Broadsword +2 (+3 against wolves)" are one way, and even these distinctions can be further occluded by requiring them to be "identified" by items, player skills, or competent NPCs.

At the end of the day, the use of overt mathematics to demonstrate game mechanics to the player cannot be excised without supplying some alternative means to the same end.

The worst case is one in which the player finds himself ineffective in the game world and cannot understand why, as was the case with me in Vagrant Story. I had borrowed the game, and was enjoying it, but had no real understanding of the weapon skill system, and so I had no "dragon" weapons. I had trained and levelled for hours, but when I found myself faced with a lizard man I was hopelessly outmatched. The weapons that had slain bosses and soldiers for hours before were of no use against this new enemy, and I had no heart to get started on an entirely new set of gear. If only I had understood the system, I''d have been better prepared for that situation. My false assumptions were my downfall.

So perhaps a good compromise would be to use a system that everyone knows (D&D, FF, etc.) and occlude the math so that, while players will have a basic understanding of the system that will prevent unpleasant surprises, they will not be able to predect the outcome of a fight by comparing STR and DEX stats.

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage

quote:

---

Original post by VThornheart
I think the real trouble comes when you show the player too much of "what''s behind the veil". You need to hide things from the player, while giving them some things.

---

This comment is very perceptive. I''m beginning to realize that seeing numbers for things like stats and combat is a valuable tool for letting the player understand the metaphysic of the game world. VThornheart has cut to the quick of the idea that the "+X (against enemy B)" example is hinting at.

In order to effectively inhabity a game world, a player must have an understanding of how it works. For PnP players, it makes sense to use a system with which they are familiar, because it makes it possible to "jump right in" and play the game naturally, without having to learn all new algorithms.

Games like Ogre Battle and Vagrant Story are difficult to learn precisely because they use unorthodox systems, and the player is required to learn them swiftly and keep up with them throughout the game. In Ogre Battle, even a good strategist can suddenly find himself at the van of an ineffective army, with little hope of sufficient reform. In Vagrant Story, a diligent RPG''er might find himself paradoxically harming his skills by fighting monsters in droves, a tecnique which has served him well throughout his gaming career.

If you are going to hide the nuts and bolts of the game, and thus blindfold the player to the laws that govern the world he''s competing in, then it is your obligation to make it possible for that player to "feel" his way through it. Simple substitutions like "Great Broadsword of Wolf''s Bane" for "Broadsword +2 (+3 against wolves)" are one way, and even these distinctions can be further occluded by requiring them to be "identified" by items, player skills, or competent NPCs.

At the end of the day, the use of overt mathematics to demonstrate game mechanics to the player cannot be excised without supplying some alternative means to the same end.

The worst case is one in which the player finds himself ineffective in the game world and cannot understand why, as was the case with me in Vagrant Story. I had borrowed the game, and was enjoying it, but had no real understanding of the weapon skill system, and so I had no "dragon" weapons. I had trained and levelled for hours, but when I found myself faced with a lizard man I was hopelessly outmatched. The weapons that had slain bosses and soldiers for hours before were of no use against this new enemy, and I had no heart to get started on an entirely new set of gear. If only I had understood the system, I''d have been better prepared for that situation. My false assumptions were my downfall.

So perhaps a good compromise would be to use a system that everyone knows (D&D, FF, etc.) and occlude the math so that, while players will have a basic understanding of the system that will prevent unpleasant surprises, they will not be able to predect the outcome of a fight by comparing STR and DEX stats.

---

Some times you piss me off, sometimes you post gold, n1 i totally agree.

The RPG I''m working on uses an interesting system for weapons. Firearms have Caliber, Weight, Rate of Fire, and Ammo capacity among a few other things, all displayed to the player, if they examine the weapon (a sort of screen pops up DnD style). However, these numbers are partial derivitives from true stats like Damage, etc. It is basically a make-over to the underlying math. Weight and Ammo are factors, but may do different things than displayed to the player.

Melee weapons have totally different DISPLAYED stats like Weight Distribution, Quality, etc. that are virtually the same as for firearms, but look different from the player''s point of view.

Player stat interfaces use numbers for core stats and bars for skills. However, damage is done on a sort of target graph, with areas for each body part, and three-four layers. There is an external layer, internal (sort of like muscle), vital organ (if one is in the area), and bone. When a character is hit, the damage is properly allocated. Each part/layer has a percentage underneath, but all the player sees is a diagram of the body with damage shown in red. The more damage, the more red. The diagram is normally green. Lost limbs are displayed in grey.

It works fairly well.

As someone said a few posts back, some people like all the stats and maths everywhere. Final Fantasy and D&D certainly have their fans, and fair play to them. But we've already got FF and D&D - we don't want everything to be like that.

I think we all agree that the player needs to be given some information so that he can make informed, intelligent choices within the game system, and not be completely lost. The question is what does he need to know, and how much? Now don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Baldur's Gate hugely and generally like the D&D system, but it, and many other games, tells me a huge amount that I already know.

For example, I know that field plate armour will offer me more protection than a leather tunic. I know that a longbow will shoot further and more powerfully than a shortbow. I would presume a dagger to be slightly more nippy than a ruddy great battleaxe, and being hit by a wooden club to hurt less than being cracked on the bonce with a morning star. Yet still I am bombarded with information about weapon speed times, maximum ranges, armour class, THACOs, damage modifiers and so on.

Now of course, it would be useful to know how much slower or faster a weapon is, or how much more or less damage it can cause, but surely we don't need every last statistic. And if they have magical effects, then by all means let the player know what they are, but we just don't need the details. If I have a ring that causes fear, just tell me it causes fear. Then monsters near me start to freak out and run away. Nice one, interesting. But don't ruin it all by saying that it causes fear within 10 yards if a creature fails his Nerve roll - I don't need to know that.

I think another problem that arises out of the Too Much Maths syndrome is that players don't experiment. I've already got a Sword Of Ass Kicking +2, and so you're not going to find me using some paltry Mace Of Minor Beatings +1 Knockback. So I don't experiment - I only ever use a weapon that I know is better than the one I'm already using. But if I don't know the difference, I'll have to try them both out, before I decide which one is better. Maybe the knockback works well with my style of play. Maybe I just like the animation of the mace or the sound it makes. But all the numbers seem to do is tell me whether I should use something before I've even tried it out. What's the point of that?

Another example of a game with sudden random maths in it: there's a feature in Project Zero (aka Fatal Frame) where you can upgrade your ghost-zapping camera. Suddenly, after properly shitting it with all these ghosts jumping out at you and heartbeat sound effects and the rumble pack all on top panic-inducing form, I get the option to spend my Points on either Increasing Camera Speed (2000 points) or Increasing Power Up Time (a snip at 3500). Wha?? Where did that come from? It didn't fit at all within the environment and atmosphere of the spooky Japanese mansion I was wondering around in a moment ago.

Going back to the fantasy stuff, I am even informed by Baldur's Gate that I need to use two hands when weilding a two-handed sword. For crying out loud. If I can't work that out, the Princess hasn't got a hope



[edited by - BiggerStaff on March 15, 2004 6:05:39 PM]

I kinda enjoy getting all the statistics and math presented to me. That way i can calculate the most optimal setup of my gear. Sure you could say that you dont have to be optimal all the time etc, but for me, that is a big part of the fun.
Collecting and finding better items..

I am far from alone with this point of view. One of the most extreme examples i know of is the game Dark Age of Camelot. In daoc, most of the stats and maths of items are not presented to the player, as a resulte of this, the player community have done extensive testing to find out the formulas for all sorts of things. Example of things i remember that was pinpointed down was: formula for chance to strike with both weapons. Damage relative to attack speed. Damage done over time.. And lots more, this was done trough logging fights and trying to figureout the formulas from the result. All in order to be able to calculate the optimal gear setups.

If you want to see it checkout the daoc section on the vnboards, was a while since i played the game but i doubt it has changed.. In those days at least 1/4 of all the classboard posts of the fighterclasses was about formulas, how they worked etc, and posts of logs proving one point or another...

So clearly there is an audience that enjoys to see the stats aswell

[edited by - peter_b on March 15, 2004 6:26:51 PM]

[edited by - peter_b on March 15, 2004 6:27:44 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by NecroMage
The RPG I''m working on uses an interesting system for weapons. Firearms have Caliber, Weight, Rate of Fire, and Ammo capacity among a few other things, all displayed to the player, if they examine the weapon (a sort of screen pops up DnD style). However, these numbers are partial derivitives from true stats like Damage, etc. It is basically a make-over to the underlying math. Weight and Ammo are factors, but may do different things than displayed to the player.

Melee weapons have totally different DISPLAYED stats like Weight Distribution, Quality, etc. that are virtually the same as for firearms, but look different from the player''s point of view.

Player stat interfaces use numbers for core stats and bars for skills. However, damage is done on a sort of target graph, with areas for each body part, and three-four layers. There is an external layer, internal (sort of like muscle), vital organ (if one is in the area), and bone. When a character is hit, the damage is properly allocated. Each part/layer has a percentage underneath, but all the player sees is a diagram of the body with damage shown in red. The more damage, the more red. The diagram is normally green. Lost limbs are displayed in grey.

It works fairly well.

---

My weapons are using things like limited ammo and stats similar to yours except ill have a DMC/Resi Evil style stat screen and I''m using ammo to add to the game play in terms of looking after weapons which are effective but are not to be eternally relied upon to always work.

As for you second idea, i had this one a while back but discarded it when i began to consider the complexity and unrealistic nature of it, what happens when you knock out a limb, attack drops? Defense drops? what exactly and how do you propose restoring these "dead limbs" to put it morbidly.

BiggerStaff -- Me thinks you''ve answered your own question to a degree, we dont need to know things like "you need two hands to use this two handed sword".

Instead of listing what should and shouldn''t be edited by us while doing our games why dont we simply give examples becuase we could be hear for years listing areas one by one where in computer games we could of or they should of edited out the obvious points.

If we find a form which we can design our games by in terms of what we should be showing to the player that we could all relate to in our own work that would be more productive.