RPGs are never too complicated, the best RPG are showing a detailed world.

As for your problem with blocking... Try to imagine it how it would looks like in real live. One of them would be guarding other, the guarded person would also try to stand out of hurt.

Slow moving swordsman can't move around your knights, because one of these would block his sword when attacking. Some games are simulating this by block event, others are simply increasing defense when the other person is close. For example in Fire emblem they have increased stats caused by being close to a person they trained with.

You can also make a combat simultaneous, thus these knights would need to A. attack someone else on purpose. B. be pushed away and be one step behind attacker.

@tstrimp: I don't know why I hadn't thought of that! Originally, AoO were available to everyone, but movement during the interception would cost double what it normally would in stamina. However, the ability to move during an intercept as a special ability might be even better. The next question is whether it gets too hard to keep track of who has what interception ability.

Really, the reason I started this thread was to see where my fellow gamers would draw the line at the amount of information they need to keep track of. I can absorb a good deal of game rules for an RPG, but if I leave the game for a week, I am reticent to replay it since I've already forgotten it.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Silly to some people, but not to me. You say you play on something like a chess board, so I'd probably see it as something like chess. This is how I see Final Fantasy Tactics. I don't ask why my units patiently wait their turn while being beaten on, and I don't know of any real bishops OCD enough to only walk on white tiles.

That's sort of what I was asking tstrimp earlier. Is the "realism" of an intercepting ninja worth it in gameplay to justify the extra space it has to occupy in your head? For the bishops, I'm sure one or two of them are reconciled enough with their inner child to play White-Tiles-Are-Hot-Lava. [lol]

Quote:

There's actually a lot of information in Final Fantasy Tactics' UI. When casting a spell, it tells you on what turn it'll be cast and you can find when a unit's turn is coming up by hovering over it. If you want to know when an enemy's spell will be cast, press X to unselect your character, then triangle, then select AT list (I do wish this was more convenient, but it is there).

I remember that, because I kept trying to finish battles with Meteor, which was so woefully slow as to be practically useless. However, did you know that you could press right (I believe) when selecting a spell from a list, and it would tell you when the spell would resolve? I don't think that was in any of the in-game text or the manual. If a user can't / won't use a feature, then that feature is effectively non-existent for that user. Perhaps the real solution is not simplifying the gameplay, but presenting the information more usefully?

Quote:

Maybe. If you really don't want to simplify it, and attacks of opportunity are going to be the main point of interaction during the enemy's move, then perhaps, as the enemy moves, you could highlight your own units as the enemy moves into/out of their current (as determined by stamina) intercept radius. When moving your own units, perhaps you could draw a circle of some sort to indicate the unit's intercept radius (e.g. a line at their current intercept radius or a gradient from their current radius to where it will be at the start of their next turn).

Those are great examples of better-presented information.

Even if the information is all presented logically and legibly, is there a point at which it becomes too much and stops registering with you?

Personally, my eyes gloss over when my wife is playing Romance of the Three Kingdoms, especially in the town building phases. There are times when it seems more like a spreadsheet than a game.

Just to clarify things, I see interception as something that is completely automated. You don't have to do anything for it to happen. As long as a unit has the stamina it will attack the first thing that moves through it's threat range. In the case of the Ninja's AoO at 3 spaces away, I don't see him actually moving there, it could be shown as a shuriken or jump attack but he ends up back on the same square he started on. The interceptor also doesn't block an attack. If the attacker is strong enough to survive one or more AoO he can move past your Ninjas and bonk the healer on the head. He is in deep trouble the next round however when the ninjas have full stamina and he is badly wounded already.

If the ninja has a 3 range AoO area then he could be a very deadly protection unit. Put him right next to your healer and he can hit one or more times (depending on how you handle multiple AoO) before they get in range of the healer. This means your opponent will need to bring some ranged attackers around in order to successfully deal with them.

My last post was a little thick, so allow me the indulgence of another post to clarify myself.

Considering that the posters in this thread so far sound like they would be a bit overwhelmed with keeping track of expanding-contracting AoO radii, would this system be better adapted to a non-grid RPG? For instance, if one uses only two abstract sides (as in most JRPGs), the AoO mechanic could be reduced to something as simple as the cover materia from FF7 or the Knight's Code of FF6.

The downside to simplifying the battles even further is that the adventuring party is just one girl who summons others to her aid (much like playing monsters and warrios in card games). Since they vanish at the end of battle, it would get pretty tedious to have to set up your defenses every ten steps, as in MegaTen games. For this reason, I have chosen to have nearly all gameplay in battle and the world map (the method used in Quest-lineage SRPGs).

If battles are the primary method of user interaction, would this two-side approach be too simple? Keep in mind that I intend for the battles to be complex enough to last 10 minutes or more, with boss battles commonly requiring 20 minutes. This is all theoretical, as I only have two working battle scenarios so far.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf For instance, if one uses only two abstract sides (as in most JRPGs), the AoO mechanic could be reduced to something as simple as the cover materia from FF7 or the Knight's Code of FF6.

I see AoO being a separate ability from "covering". All melee units have AoO range of at least one whereas the cover ability is unique to particular units.

Quote:

The downside to simplifying the battles even further is that the adventuring party is just one girl who summons others to her aid (much like playing monsters and warrios in card games). Since they vanish at the end of battle, it would get pretty tedious to have to set up your defenses every ten steps, as in MegaTen games. For this reason, I have chosen to have nearly all gameplay in battle and the world map (the method used in Quest-lineage SRPGs).

I'm not sure what you mean by setting up defenses but then they can provide defense automatically via AoO as long as you don't use all of their stamina.

Quote:

If battles are the primary method of user interaction, would this two-side approach be too simple? Keep in mind that I intend for the battles to be complex enough to last 10 minutes or more, with boss battles commonly requiring 20 minutes. This is all theoretical, as I only have two working battle scenarios so far.

I think so. There are many more strategic options with the grid layout.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Just to clarify things, I see interception as something that is completely automated.

That's not quite what I'm going for. Since it consumes stamina, I want an interception to be a judgment call on the defender's part. Perhaps the target of the attack has enough HP to survive, and you'd rather save your ninja's stamina for an assault on their back ranks.

Quote:

In the case of the Ninja's AoO at 3 spaces away, I don't see him actually moving there, it could be shown as a shuriken or jump attack but he ends up back on the same square he started on. The interceptor also doesn't block an attack. If the attacker is strong enough to survive one or more AoO he can move past your Ninjas and bonk the healer on the head.

I don't think that would quite accomplish my goal with AoO. My feeling is that all too often (especially in Shining Force for GBA), enemies can walk past 5 heavily armored defenders and one-shot my healer in the back row. I want my defenders to be able to actively stop an advancing goblin. This makes sense from the goblin's point of view (I'm not going to ignore the guy trying to hack my head off just to get to the healer), but it may cause games to become excessively defensive and drag on a bit.

Quote:

If the ninja has a 3 range AoO area then he could be a very deadly protection unit. Put him right next to your healer and he can hit one or more times (depending on how you handle multiple AoO) before they get in range of the healer. This means your opponent will need to bring some ranged attackers around in order to successfully deal with them.

After reading some of this, I'm beginning to reconsider my interceptions in favor of the simpler AoO.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf That's not quite what I'm going for. Since it consumes stamina, I want an interception to be a judgment call on the defender's part. Perhaps the target of the attack has enough HP to survive, and you'd rather save your ninja's stamina for an assault on their back ranks.

I thought that the stamina refilled at the beginning of the next turn. What would prevent the back assault then?

Quote:

I don't think that would quite accomplish my goal with AoO. My feeling is that all too often (especially in Shining Force for GBA), enemies can walk past 5 heavily armored defenders and one-shot my healer in the back row. I want my defenders to be able to actively stop an advancing goblin.

This is just a balancing issue. I was thinking of it being more like Fire Emblem where a unit can't take more then a few hits (or less :D) before going down. This makes melee units with a ranged AoO very deadly but still vulnerable to ranged and magic. It would be interesting to have a working example so we could play with some of these concepts to see how well they would balance.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp I see AoO being a separate ability from "covering". All melee units have AoO range of at least one whereas the cover ability is unique to particular units.

I think I may be crossing nomenclature here. I mean interceptions to be something that prevents an attacker from reaching his intended target. In two-side battles like traditional JRPGs, monster A attacks ally B, while ally C would jump in front and take the damage while simultaneously attacking the monster. Under that system, you could even have multiple defenders throwing themselves in front of the attack.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by setting up defenses but then they can provide defense automatically via AoO as long as you don't use all of their stamina.

I mean at the start of a battle, you only control one character. In order to get defenders at all, you need to summon them onto the battlefield. I imagine each battle would typically start with summon small defender, cast "fire shield" on wizard, summon small attacker, etc. Can you imagine having to do that every ten steps through a dungeon? That's why action is primarily on the battlefield, so that I can cut out the dungeon portion entirely.

Quote:

I think so. There are many more strategic options with the grid layout.

Ugh...I was hoping not to have to implement a grid-system after all. [lol] Right now, I have a 2-side battlefield in 3d and a grid on console. I wonder if any open source projects have any Quest-style battlefields implemented.

Quote:

Original post by templewulf I think I may be crossing nomenclature here. I mean interceptions to be something that prevents an attacker from reaching his intended target. In two-side battles like traditional JRPGs, monster A attacks ally B, while ally C would jump in front and take the damage while simultaneously attacking the monster. Under that system, you could even have multiple defenders throwing themselves in front of the attack.

That's how I saw cover working, except for the counter attack part. AoO is for attacking the enemy before as they move passed you or through your threatened area, cover is used just for jumping in front and taking the damage. The AoO idea makes a lot less sense in the Final Fantasy (non tactics) style battle since range is mostly irrelevant. Pretty much all of my AoO comments have been operating under the assumption that you're making a grid based strategy game (Fire Emblem, FFT Ogre Battle etc).

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp I thought that the stamina refilled at the beginning of the next turn. What would prevent the back assault then?

It sounds like I explained stamina poorly. You don't get stamina from a new turn, you get a new turn when you have 100% stamina. I have a class for Battle that has a method Tick(). When Battle.Tick() is called, each character has its stamina increased by its speed. Once combatant.stamina is >= combatant.maxStamina, then they get a turn. Since interceptions consume stamina, defenders who keep doing it will never get an actual turn.

What do you mean by "back assault"?

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp That's how I saw cover working, except for the counter attack part. AoO is for attacking the enemy before as they move passed you or through your threatened area, cover is used just for jumping in front and taking the damage. The AoO idea makes a lot less sense in the Final Fantasy (non tactics) style battle since range is mostly irrelevant. Pretty much all of my AoO comments have been operating under the assumption that you're making a grid based strategy game (Fire Emblem, FFT Ogre Battle etc).

I am working on a grid-based game, but I offered the example of how "cover + counter-attack" works in a more abstract setting. I guess it did cloud the issue, but I asked it since I was pondering a simpler combat system.

Considering the confusion I've caused in this thread, I should describe the way my "interception" should work in a grid-based SRPG:

  A  B  C1[ ][G][D]2[ ][ ][ ]3[ ][ ][ ]4[M][ ][ ]

Monster M is sitting on tile A4. M gets a turn and moves toward B2 to attack Geomancer G (your main character). However, during the animation, the player presses the Intercept Button, and it brings up a list of allies with enough stamina to make an interception. The player selects Defender D, who moves onto tile B2 before Monster M does. M is then stuck on tile B3, and attacks D. D takes the damage from M, but simultaneously does his standard attack against M. What I want to get across is that interception prevents M's attack from getting to G.