<Untitled IAQ Project>: War Never Ends (voting over, but discussion to continue)

[OblivionKnight]

.....

I missed a lot of this in the past few days :/  What a shitty week it's been!

Anyway, I'll comment on what's been brought up already...


Presence of SRPG elements (movement, AoEs): If a Grandia-esque system is in consideration, then some movement needs to be involved.  I like having different "MT" attacks - lines, areas, around, etc.  I think it increases strategic elements, and having movement in some way is important.  Alternatively, some type of system akin to Koudelka's would work as well, where there's more of a grid that people maneuver on, with different PCs having different movement ranges, attack ranges, etc.  I think I'd prefer AtL4-esque movement, actually, overall...

Impact of speed stat on actual speed: I really like quadratic, actually >_>  But Linear works.

resource limits: Restore before bosses, challenging fights that require resources to be used in randoms...HP can be healed after randoms, MP no, is how I'd go with it.

Randoms vs. Visibles: I like randoms >_>  But I think you can go any way (the AI2 system works well if you want to go randoms...and have a WA-esque "encounter skip" system too).  I do like on-screen randoms that you can initiate combat with, and gain advantages (traps, striking them from behind, etc.).  Also allows you to set leaders in randoms, which could add more strategy to battle ("Regicide Victory" or something).  You should have varying levels of aggression, and have some forced fights (scaled for minimal level players) to keep people relatively levelled.

Levelling vs. Set Levels: I like grinding >_>  You need to balance things, I think.  Constantly fighting should increase your skills - it's like training.  However, you can make skills be learned at certain times, via sidequests, etc.  And have some natural ones, of course (mages "inventing" new spells as they level).  You can balance it such that some skills are learned via levels, you get stats via levels, but some skills you need to gain in other areas...and if you have skills with level gains on them, grinding early means your higher level skills take longer to level (scale skill points, for skill levels, similarly to Suikoden, i.e., less as you get stronger than enemies).

expectation of PC durability: See above.

scale of battles: Variable, of course.  More enemies is good.

presence and use of switching alongside active party size: Assuming a Grandia system, characters should be able to switch - just get them to the edge of the screen and switch out.  Person comes in at the start of the CTB gauge, easily done.  Or, make some CTB bonus for the first turn, or maybe a penalty, or something.  Reward it.  You could also reduce experience or whatever of a character that doesn't take part in the fight (so...75% of the experience or something).

presence and effect of combo system: Yes

presence or absence of combo attacks: Yes, as this helps specialize characters and reward multiple character use.

On switching and multiple parties: Eh, if you do multiple parties, yes.  Otherwise...Like FF6 in the split path areas maybe?  I need to read the rest of the topic again.

[AndrewRogue]

Excal, as a DnD player, I know so little of hexes that it isn't even funny. But yes, two ring sounds about right. A fair amount of space for moving, especially is we made allowance for PC stacking.

OK: How did AtL4 handle movement?

On resource management- HP vs MP: I only bring this up on the basis that, if we're going for unique character mechanics to a notable degree... we probably won't have something like MP actually available to manage.

A thought occurs, though. How about something like a generalized "fatigue" meter? It'd function like... reverse MP, basically and only really be relevant in long sequences instead of individual fights (see: boss confrontations). Taking special actions or completing battles would fill the meter. As it increased, your stats would decline in some linear fashion/you'd lose access to techs. This would also encourage actively using your roster of PCs as much as possible to reduce the strain of fatigue, or spend cash-moneyz so you can spam the same group and keep their fatigue down.

Or something. I dunno.

[Yakumo]

AtL4 basically had an open field with no hexes or the like, and when your character's turn came up they had a range they could move in and then do their action.  It kinda slows the game down though, especially if you're at all finicky about perfect positioning or are having trouble getting exactly the right spot to hit those two enemies with your AoE attack or something.

[OblivionKnight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5eVka4Zs0c&feature=related

Not the best showing, but it works.  I really liked the system, and it could be implemented decently well. 

General movement range for each character, range difference based on weapons, etc.  It is a bit slower than other systems, but it does, if done correctly, allow some strategy.  Add a CTB meter to show speeds, and it is a take on Grandia/WA4.

[074]

So basically it's BoFV.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I'd like for character plots to be integrated in to battle performance, ala WA4. Jude is fast and freakishly durable because he has accelerator/is a genetic freak. Raquel is physically kind of brittle but has sword abilities that make her hard to tag.

[074]

That fits more in character design, but is a good point.  Factoring in plot abilities for PCs is always useful.


(...EP still leaves me wondering why Thage was magic-immune, on that note)

[DjinnAndTonic]

EP: It's her unique Librum.

The AtL4 system isn't BoF5. They are similar though. However, BoF5 uses AP that determines both how far you can move and what kind of action you can take, it's variable. You can move further and do less moves, or stay put and do more/better moves. AtL4 has a set movement range and a set range for weapons/skills. It's closer to Phantom Brave/Makai Kingdom than BoF5. Additionally, Makai Kingdom sped up the process by auto-targeting enemies in range... and by allowing movement after a player selected a skill. This took away all that niggling positioning time, though if you wanted to try for something ridiculously hard to pinpoint, you still had the option to freely position your placement and targeting.

On character-switching: OK's system works. It essentially turns character-switching into a side feature. You get rewarded for it, but it's not practical to use it in every battle since it requires going to the edge of the battlefield and taking up a turn. Personally, I'd like to see the battle system tailored around the mechanic, but it seems I'm in the minority.

On character resources: No universal system. I'd prefer if each character had their own method of resource management, and it could be something we discuss for each character/set of characters. A fatigue meter sounds interesting, but I don't want to force it on the player for each character. A character who uses traditional MP, a character who has to build up limits, a character who get specific items from monsters to use their skills, a character who slowly regenerates MP, a character who has a cool-down meter on each skill. There's tons of potential ideas here that will specialize each character.

On item resources: Give items limited immediately supply (say max of 10 at a time), and give certain characters the ability to use items 'better' than others (Maybe certain PCs can use items in-battle that can normally only be used out-of-battle, for example. Or a 'Mystic'-type ability).

On combo system: If we have something like this, I'd prefer it tie into some kind of Timed Hit mechanic. If a player is skilled at timed hits, then perhaps they get more hits in their special move, which 'ups the combo meter and does more damage'. Naturally, WA5-style 'how many times can the team attack one enemy before it moves'-style 'combo damage bonus' is also easy to implement. There's probably a more elegant way to implement this, but honestly it's not looking like a big feature either way. Like everything else on this list though, we could tailor some characters towards being able to -really- take advantage of it and it would give them their own niche.

On combo attacks: Strongly in favor of things that put more emphasis on which characters a player is using. Character relationships will naturally evolve as we make characters. Pretty much any character pair (and possibly trio/quartet) with a strong enough or interesting enough relationship should have some kind of combination attack. Perhaps some characters can even have a modified version of the system where they can do a generic 'pair attack' with any character.

SRPG elements: Can we just not copy WA4/5? As long as the Hex system we go with has some kind of major difference from WA4/5, I guess I'm okay with this. Perhaps -not- having shared hexes? And hell no to ley points being the only things that determine elemental attacks. The double-ring hex grid sounds pretty cool though. Though I think it would make battles even slower than AtL4/Makai Kingdom movement...

We should -totally- introduce the new and improved 'OCT' grid system.

Oh right, I should chime in on PC designing. I suggested that each person should have their own project PC. Honestly, I just feel this would be the more 'fair' method of designing. However, I'm perfectly fine with design by committee too. If we put someone in charge, I recommend Andy.

[Talaysen]

If we're allowing character switching, I don't think it should take a turn.  I would pretty much never use it in that case because I could just use my turn instead.  If you already have to go to the edge of the battlefield or something that's enough.  There can be a limit on it (Mana Khemia style time limits are cool) though.

Hell no to people used in battle getting more experience.  That just rewards switching a bunch for EXP instead of actual strategy.

[Dark Holy Elf]

If we're allowing character switching, I don't think it should take a turn.  I would pretty much never use it in that case because I could just use my turn instead.

On the other hand, character switching really needs some disadvantage or it's just kinda broke. Like, in FFX or Mana Khemia there's no objective reason (most of the time) to start with anyone but the fastest PCs because you can just rotate others in using their first turns. That strikes me as degenerate and nonsensical - Auron is slow but he can outspeed everyone if Rikku slaps his hand or something? what

When it takes your turn, you only do it for one of the main reasons that has been suggested we have it at all - you run up against a battle where you think "oh shit, specific PC X would -totally- be useful here". Mostly a boss thing of course.

Though, it doesn't have to take a turn as long as there's some other price attached. MMXCM is probably my personal favourite here - doesn't take a turn, but a character who switches in doesn't get WE for that turn which is a significant downside and prevents degeneration. Granted, this is a mechanic very specific to MMXCM (few games have something like WE) but you get the idea.


Timed hits: Haven't really discussed this one yet, so here goes. Timed hits can be kinda cool, but you have to be careful with them. For one, you risk turning off some players entirely with the action element. For another, you have to think about what botching them means. Since I lean towards making games more challenging in general, this means that in some situations, one missed time hit is potentially game over if we're not careful. Could definitely happen in SH3 (other games with timed hits are pretty much uniformly easy) although the judgement ring system is sexy enough that if you aren't trying for strikes (20% more damage for non-SH players), attacks are dead easy to land barring some status (which is fair). Regardless, I lean towards timed hits being overall not worth the effort - the subtleties also can't be appreciated in IAQ form.

Hell no to people used in battle getting more experience.

This.

[DjinnAndTonic]

[2010-01-16 13:31:59] <Djinn> We've been discussing things in real-time.
[2010-01-16 13:32:08] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Anyhow, fundamentally, we have a bare bones framework for the combat system. That's a functional starting place.
[2010-01-16 13:32:28] <Djinn> Well, we five people have discussed a functional framework.

BATTLEFIELD SUMMARY:
[2010-01-16 13:34:44] <Djinn> We're thinking about implementing a double-ring Hex grid with high movement in place to keep battles fast-paced and avoid SRPG movement lag.
[2010-01-16 13:36:41] <CmdrKing> So you could readily get from center to the edge with any character at a minimum?  Make sense.
[2010-01-16 13:37:17] <Djinn> Yes, and leaning more that most characters can go from edge to edge. To allow for easy positioning, since there's going to be enemies and obstacles.
BATTLEFIELD SPECIFICS:
[2010-01-16 11:49:33] <Nyamagomi> For a double ring grid, it’s 25 spaces total for squares, compared to 19 or so for hexes. The hexes interlock better too.
[2010-01-16 11:51:35] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Anyhow, realistically, our hex should have no similarities to WA4/5. It is just a grid shape.
[2010-01-16 11:51:48] <Djinn> Then characters shouldn't share hexes.
[2010-01-16 11:51:57] <Djinn> Especially if we're increasing the grid size.
[2010-01-16 11:53:25] <Cecilia> If movement range isn't high enough, not being able to move into the same hex as another PC causes problems very easily.
[2010-01-16 11:54:00] <Djinn> Fair point.
[2010-01-16 11:54:32] <Cecilia> It'll be four range from any one hex to any other hex, barring obstacles.
[2010-01-16 11:57:36] <Djinn> Then I think we should generally just give every character 4 move under this system then.
[2010-01-16 11:58:11] <Nyamagomi> 4?
[2010-01-16 11:58:18] <Nyamagomi> So basically, 'anywhere on the grid'
[2010-01-16 12:11:21] <Nyamagomi> Though...I'd be more for 2-4. (Allowing for a bit of character variety)
[2010-01-16 11:58:29] <Djinn> People can generally go where they want, the game should be more about strategic use of skills similar to a turn-based system.
[2010-01-16 11:58:46] <Djinn> Rather than movement being the big deciding factor.
[2010-01-16 11:58:58] <Djinn> Basically, I'm pushing for the game to be more like G3-battles than WA4-battles.
[2010-01-16 12:33:08] <Nyamagomi> Also noting that this provides an innate drawback to ranged/AoE
<Djinn> Not really. 4 movement on a two-ring hex grid still runs into the issue of 'oh, can't move into my enemy's square'. So ranged/ AoE still has its purpose.
<Nyamagomi> Oh, I know. It just means that ranged attackers in particular can't position defensively so easily
[2010-01-16 12:43:39] <Djinn> Can we put less emphasis on hex sharing? Like... let's not make ALL attacks ALWAYS hit an entire hex? I'd rather it be more individual-based. But we can obviously have skills and such that -do- affect a whole hex. But let's not make the shared hex the basis of our game. Instead, I think sharing Hexes should be merely a tactic to avoid movement clusterfuck issues.
[2010-01-16 12:45:25] <Nyamagomi> ST, in this case, is true ST.
[2010-01-16 12:45:45] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> That was the idea to me, anyhow.
[2010-01-16 12:45:46] <Cecilia> Could just make only AoEs hit whole hexes.
[2010-01-16 12:45:52] <Nyamagomi> Works.
[2010-01-16 12:45:54] <Djinn> Works.
[2010-01-16 12:46:18] <Cecilia> Being in the same hex can already be a detriment since it means enemies can target more people easier. So they get more choices. Assuming the AI doesn't blow of course.
TARGETING SUMMARY:
[2010-01-16 13:38:57] <Djinn> Allies can share Hexes, but basic attacks are true ST, they only hit one person in a full hex. Sharing hexes primarily serves the purpose of avoiding "Oh crap, I can't go there because my ally is in the way."
[2010-01-16 13:39:19] <Djinn> Other abilities can hit whole hexes or groups of hexes.
[2010-01-16 13:39:49] <CmdrKing> Elegant counterpart to group targeting.

COMBO ATTACKS:
[2010-01-16 12:46:31] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Honestly, while I'm thinking on it. If we want combos/combo attacks, it should be based in hex sharing
 [2010-01-16 12:46:48] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> That way there is some Risk vs Reward for it.
[2010-01-16 12:47:41] <Djinn> combos/combo attacks based in the same hex... well, it's the WA4 system all over again... but it's not a bad system there.
[2010-01-16 12:48:24] <Djinn> We could have both! Some combo attacks would require sharing a HEX, and some awesome ones wouldn't.
[2010-01-16 12:49:01] <Cecilia> Combo attack for surrounding the enemy *nod* WA4 has one of those but only on the enemy end.  :/
[2010-01-16 12:49:27] <Djinn> Different requirements for different combo attacks. It would be another level to consider when choosing a party.
COMBO ATTACKS SUMMARY:
[2010-01-16 13:42:49] <Djinn> We're in favor of combo attacks (not really a combo system though), with the majority of them requiring PCs to be in the same Hex, but other combo attacks require different formations, or can be true 'anywhere on the map' combo abilities, depending on character.

SPEED THOUGHTS:
[2010-01-16 13:41:14] <Djinn> Speed is CTB, though I imagine if people are still married to the Grandia concept, there is still the possibility for turn cancelling and delaying.
[2010-01-16 13:42:04] <CmdrKing> Mimicing Grandia in CTB is easy enough ni most respects.
[2010-01-16 13:42:22] <CmdrKing> Charge times, heavy use of delay, and Cancel Strike.
[2010-01-16 13:41:49] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> (Can't comment there. I dunno how tthat stuff works)
[2010-01-16 13:42:00] <Cecilia> (Play Grandia 3.)
[2010-01-16 13:42:36] <Cecilia> Though in essence, you just use a specific type of move between the time someone chooses to charge a move and it activates.

TIMED ATTACKS:
[2010-01-16 12:52:04] <Djinn> Another issue I want to discuss... interactivity in fighting... Timed Attacks, Judgment ring? Things that make you not put your brain on auto?
[2010-01-16 12:52:31] <xorntoro-myboybuildscoffins> In general if your brain goes on auto you haven't made it difficult enough is my feel~
[2010-01-16 12:55:07] <Cecilia> Apathetic to timed hits. Not really against it but whatever.
[2010-01-16 12:55:23] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> It feels like something to keep in mind, but depending on length of fight and involvement, they might just get annoying.
[2010-01-16 12:55:26] <Djinn> Could we have -some- abilities that require timed hits or FF6 Blitz-like inputs or something? Just to shake things up?
[2010-01-16 12:56:04] <xorntoro-myboybuildscoffins> If one of the PCs ends up having it, sure. Pitch for it then?
[2010-01-16 12:56:23] <Nyamagomi> And yeah, save weird PC move inputs for the PC dev section.
[2010-01-16 12:57:05] <Cecilia> Not against a PC having timed hits or anything.
[2010-01-16 12:57:09] <Djinn> I'm just throwing out ideas.
[2010-01-16 12:58:19] <Nyamagomi> Djinn: We kind of need quirks spread amongst the 16+ characters anyway

FRIENDLY FIRE:
[2010-01-16 11:52:35] <Nyamagomi> ...hm.  Friendly Fire on or off?
[2010-01-16 11:52:45] <Djinn> Variable.
[2010-01-16 11:52:52] <Djinn> Some skills do it, some don't.

CHARACTER SWITCHING:
[2010-01-16 13:01:45] <Djinn> Character switching.
[2010-01-16 13:02:53] * xorntoro-myboybuildscoffins needs to crash. Quick character switching input: while it partially depends on our end battle system result, I'd approve of at least some limited ability to do so.
[2010-01-16 13:02:55] <Nyamagomi> Hm, if we're incorporating movement, then there needs to be...likely 1+ specific spots would be chosen to switch to/from...if we're doing in-battle.  I'm fine with at-will out-of-battle switching, of course
 [2010-01-16 13:03:25] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> I'm losing interest in character switching. It just doesn't feel right in the system. It was awesome in MK because it was quick, smooth and based around the concept. Apathetic largely, at the moment.
[2010-01-16 13:03:26] <Djinn> I agree with Nyama.
[2010-01-16 13:03:47] <Nyamagomi> But that's if we want char-switching in-battle
[2010-01-16 13:03:50] <Cecilia> Six spots, corners of the battlefield?
[2010-01-16 13:03:51] <Djinn> We can have some characters that take advantage of the switching system.
[2010-01-16 13:04:42] <Djinn> I think having a lot of system options will allow us to differentiate our characters more.
[2010-01-16 13:06:11] <Nyamagomi> WA5 switching (which is what we'd be doing here) was INCREDIBLY inconvenient and pointless
[2010-01-16 13:06:38] <Djinn> Says you.
[2010-01-16 13:06:56] <Nyamagomi> (Partly due to the nature of WA5 characters.  Partly because it took...one turn to get onto the switch hex, ANOTHER to switch out, IIRC)
[2010-01-16 13:07:09] <Cecilia> Not if you were already in the hex.
[2010-01-16 13:07:12] <Djinn> But we could definitely refine the WA5 system by making it a free action and allowing the new PC to actually do something.
[2010-01-16 13:07:39] <Cecilia> Yes, making it be a free action is good.
[2010-01-16 13:07:51] <Djinn> Maybe the new PC inherits the excess movement from the switched-out PC.
[2010-01-16 13:08:08] <Cecilia> It's an option if you feel a different PC is better suited for a battle.
[2010-01-16 13:08:13] <Cecilia> It shouldn't be anything more than that.
[2010-01-16 13:08:21] <Djinn> What Tal says.
[2010-01-16 13:08:50] <Cecilia> We're not designing a battle system around it like MK, it's just a nice feature.
[2010-01-16 13:10:11] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Basically agreed with Tal in that regard, I suppose. Especially if we want to do a nasty hard mode that will force you to pull out all the stops
[2010-01-16 13:08:55] <Nyamagomi> ...well, okay.  Admittedly, it'd get more useful in the fourth chapter (presuming we do three chapters, then a fourth (and possibly fifth) chapter where the three parties merge)
[2010-01-16 13:09:16] <Nyamagomi> But that's getting into plot flow
CHARACTER SWITCHING SUMMARY:
[2010-01-16 13:45:45] <Djinn> We're happy with the idea of character-switching, but we don't want it to be the focus of the system like MK. Instead, since we're leaning towards 4-person active parties with 1-2 reserves, we think we can incorporate character-switching simply as a mechanism for putting a character into your party if you think their skillset suits this battle better.
[2010-01-16 13:46:59] <Djinn> We think this can be implemented by having 6 switching points in the corners of the hex grid and requiring a PC to move to that point and switch. The switch is a free action and all PCs (active or not) get the same amount of EXP.
[2010-01-16 13:47:00] <CmdrKing> So something like... at the start of battle, once you see the enemies, you have a "Do you want to change party members?" option?
[2010-01-16 13:47:31] <Cecilia> Nah, because seeing a boss doesn't tell you what they do.
[2010-01-16 13:47:48] <CmdrKing> Ah, 'kay.
[2010-01-16 13:47:57] <Nyamagomi> Basically, free-action switch at the six corners is an option
[2010-01-16 13:47:59] <Djinn> Your idea is interesting too, but the switching points option is better for multipart battles and for getting a  feel for the enemy... what Tal said.
[2010-01-16 13:48:57] <Cecilia> It's more just an option rather than a focus.
[2010-01-16 13:49:16] <Djinn> Additionally, we feel that specific characters can take advantage of any of these optional systems. Such as some having particular switching-in bonuses, or perhaps a skill that teleports the whole party to the nearest switching corner or something.



PARTY SIZE:
[2010-01-16 13:03:58] <Nyamagomi> Honestly, with parties getting as large as they are...
[2010-01-16 13:05:39] <Djinn> I'd recommend a 4-person active party. 3 always feels too limited.
[2010-01-16 13:07:00] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> (I was pushing for 4-5 active PCs)
[2010-01-16 13:07:34] <Nyamagomi> And yeah, if we're doing 5 active PCs, uh...not much point to switching
[2010-01-16 13:07:59] <Nyamagomi> Not unless Suikoden-size PC casts are going to be involved, and, uh, NO to that.
[2010-01-16 13:09:51] <Djinn> 4-person active party, with about 1 or 2 reserves per party. Then, during a mix-and-match stage, that's 4-member party plus up to 12 reserves.
[2010-01-16 13:10:14] <Djinn> When you have 12 reserves, there's going to be situations where you think "man, I wish I had so-and-so."
[2010-01-16 13:11:29] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> (Anyhow, I think I was running numbers at 4-5 active party, 2-3 reserve at the broken up point)
[2010-01-16 13:11:59] <Nyamagomi> Maybe make a ‘Reserve Team’, a fixed number of reserve members...though the final or any superbosses needing the use of the entire number of PCs would be interesting...
[2010-01-16 13:12:01] <Cecilia> Don't think it's needed but noted.
[2010-01-16 13:12:18] <Djinn> I'm thinking that party members in Reserve can still have an effect on the active party. Think S3 support characters. Speed up magic casting by 10% or something.
[2010-01-16 13:44:23] <CmdrKing> Well, considering we're aiming for a multi-party model...
[2010-01-16 13:44:37] <CmdrKing> Obviously having one geared around combos is a definite option.
[2010-01-16 13:45:47] <Nyamagomi> Assuming we go with each of the major parties having a theme of sorts?
[2010-01-16 13:46:10] <CmdrKing> Well, I can't imagine that not happening.
. . .
[2010-01-16 14:31:34] <Djinn> Oh, another thing we basically agreed on was that we like the idea of multiple parties and then having a 'chapter' or something with all PCs together.



ITEM USAGE:
[2010-01-16 13:26:25] <Djinn> I guess having some uniform item system is a good idea, even if some characters are better at it than others.
[2010-01-16 13:26:33] <Cecilia> Yes.
[2010-01-16 13:28:38] * AndrewForRussFortheWolftime supports the out of battle items only, limiting healing and such to skills in battle
[2010-01-16 13:28:45] <Djinn> I guess.
[2010-01-16 13:29:11] <Cecilia> Out of battle items work.
[2010-01-16 13:29:13] <Djinn> I support Andrew's idea, except that I think we could have a character or two who -can- use items in battle, just to mix things up.
[2010-01-16 13:29:44] <Cecilia> As long as they're different items.
[2010-01-16 13:30:01] <Djinn> Nah, just give it some kind of balancing mechanism.
[2010-01-16 13:30:12] <Cecilia> That is the balancing mechanism.
[2010-01-16 13:30:25] <Djinn> Okay, we can do it that way too
[2010-01-16 13:31:12] <Cecilia> Alchemist PC.  *nods*
HP AND RESOURCES (ALSO SEE RANDOM ENCOUNTERS):
[2010-01-16 13:27:03] <Djinn> HP... well, the only discussion there is how HP should be refilled (after battle, before a boss, only with magic, only with items, SaGaF LP system?)
[2010-01-16 13:27:58] <Cecilia> After battles is fine, though healers should exist.
[2010-01-16 13:28:37] * Djinn nods.
[2010-01-16 14:24:22] <CmdrKing> ... idea for resource management.  Passive skills.  Various party members have differing passive skills, which affect post-battle recovery of resources.
[2010-01-16 14:24:51] <Djinn> Not quite sure I understand.
[2010-01-16 14:25:01] <CmdrKing> I honestly get the feeling people want to go away from universal item use in general, actually.  Maybe have some characters that specialize around them, but not universal.
[2010-01-16 14:26:41] <Djinn> CK - still don't quite understand your idea about 'passives', but I'm intrigued by the uniqueness aspect.
[2010-01-16 14:27:15] <Cecilia> I'm fine with getting rid of universal item use.
[2010-01-16 14:27:31] <CmdrKing> Well, okay.  We're talking four person parties?  Suppose one group has two mages.  The leader of that group, as a part of the whole synergy, has a skill which causes MP regen.  Maybe 5% per turn during battle, with a 15% end of battle one.  So, this party can spam magic all day.
[2010-01-16 14:28:11] <CmdrKing> Meanwhile, another party with just one mage instead gets post-battle HP regen, so they have to conserve better, but it matters less because the rest of the party does other things so they don't rely on it.
[2010-01-16 14:28:31] <Nyamagomi> CK: Interesting.  "Leader bonus" for PCs?
[2010-01-16 14:28:55] <CmdrKing> Perhaps.  It's not necessarily something about being the leader (although it could be) but something about the character.
[2010-01-16 14:29:10] <Cecilia> Not a fan of leader bonuses.
[2010-01-16 14:29:20] <Cecilia> Puts too much emphasis on one person.
[2010-01-16 14:29:25] <Nyamagomi> Right, no leader bonuses
[2010-01-16 14:29:26] <Djinn> Could also work with the idea that PCs in "Reserve" could act like S3 support characters (10% HP restore after battle, 10% casting speed increase, etc.)
[2010-01-16 14:29:42] <CmdrKing> That might be a better way to implement it, yeah. Adds another whole dynamic.
[2010-01-16 14:30:07] <Djinn> Gives Character switching a little more use too! You may want to switch a PC OUT of battle before it ends to get the passive bonus?
[2010-01-16 14:33:03] <CmdrKing> Right.  If we use this system, it wouldn't necessarily be only post-battle effects either.  For example... a healer might have minor HP regen as a support character, but have the only revival and MT healing spells in the party.  So, do I want regen for light wounds, or do I need a dedicated healer now?  That sort of thing.
[2010-01-16 14:33:28] <Djinn> Oooh, I like that idea, CK.
[2010-01-16 14:34:48] <CmdrKing> And of course, could do other things as well.  If we're having dedicated item-users, then obviously things like improved drops might be in order.


CHARACTER FOCUS DISCUSSION:
[2010-01-16 13:50:01] <Djinn> Or that certain characters can be particularly good at using combo attacks. Or that certain characters can use items in battle in a particularly unique manner.
[2010-01-16 13:51:04] <Djinn> CmdrKing, this whole 'particular skills will be handled differently' thing is what I mean by 'we build our system to our PCs'.
[2010-01-16 13:51:35] <Djinn> We want PCs to all be very unique and have their own playstyle. Having lots of systems in place to really exploit makes this possible.
[2010-01-16 13:51:55] <CmdrKing> Ah.  Well, to go back to the Shadow Hearts example, that feels like something that comes considerably later, then.
[2010-01-16 13:52:17] <Djinn> Another idea was to have a Timed Attacks, but only for maybe one or two characters, or only for specific skills.
[2010-01-16 13:52:43] <Djinn> a Timed Attacks system, or a FF6-Blitz-like system, or a Judgment ring copy.

EXP GAIN:
[2010-01-16 13:49:54] <CmdrKing> Hm.  A possible compromise, if people do want to have some advantage for in-party characters, is to crib a little more from Wild ARMs and have action-based mults.
[2010-01-16 13:51:50] <Cecilia> Advantage to in-party characters shouldn't be EXP-based, I feel.
[2010-01-16 13:52:43] <CmdrKing> Well, I've mentioned that I think a secondary, skill-oriented experience system should be in place, and imparting advantages there would be better.
[2010-01-16 13:53:26] <Djinn> Well, a lot of characters' skills and abilities are probably going to be determined by what actions they do in battle. This would be a clear advantage to using them.
[2010-01-16 13:54:43] <Djinn> Since we think each PC should be unique in its growth system, we don't need to make a unified system for that now.
[2010-01-16 13:55:03] <Djinn> Though I don't think we should eschew EXP entirely for things like basic stat gains (or even some basic skills)
[2010-01-16 13:56:09] <Djinn> I think that covers everything we talked about.

RANDOM ENCOUNTERS:
[2010-01-16 14:07:48] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> So its not really a question of what to do with HP, but, within the constraints of what we want to do, how can we and how should we and should we at all deal with that sort of thing.
[2010-01-16 14:07:23] <Cecilia> Resource management in dungeons just means you run from randoms more.  >.>
[2010-01-16 14:07:51] <Djinn> More than people who already run from randoms because they like dungeons to be shorter.
[2010-01-16 14:07:56] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> (Unless there are forced randoms!)
[2010-01-16 14:08:19] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> (Which conceptually has come up because we're not how to handle "randoms" to begin with)
[2010-01-16 14:08:34] <Djinn> Oh yeah, I knew there was something we were missing.
[2010-01-16 14:08:47] <Djinn> I'm behind the CK method. Aggro meter + onscreen enemies.
[2010-01-16 14:09:01] <CmdrKing> Oh, well, I'm no good for that.  I'd be in favor of a game which fully healed you after every battle.
[2010-01-16 14:09:06] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Eh. I kinda agree with Excal there. The aggro meter is kinda redundant.
[2010-01-16 14:09:32] <CmdrKing> Not really.  The concern with on-screen enemies is that you end up with too wide a level variance.
[2010-01-16 14:10:29] <CmdrKing> An aggression meter balances that out a bit; enemies are eager to fight initially, but back off after you start slaughtering them.
[2010-01-16 14:10:32] <Djinn> Aggro meter also should also ALWAYS be able to be emptied. At some point, randoms just get annoying.
[2010-01-16 14:11:01] <Nyamagomi> Djinn: ...wouldn't say always
[2010-01-16 14:11:11] <Djinn> okay, good point
[2010-01-16 14:11:15] <Djinn> but almost always
[2010-01-16 14:11:35] <Djinn> Just for better game design, even if plot would indicate otherwise. ^_^;;
[2010-01-16 14:11:40] <CmdrKing> Certainly I'd want to make any areas with maximum meter rigged one-shot affairs.
[2010-01-16 14:11:45] <Cecilia> There were times in AI2 where you couldn't.. Well one that I can think of. You had to slog through a bunch of randoms before facing the HARDEST BOSS IN EXISTANCE!!1
[2010-01-16 14:11:49] <AndrewForRussFortheWolftime> Meh. I'm, on the whole, for fully scripted battle sets with a few areas that have randoms.
[2010-01-16 14:12:25] <CmdrKing> Eh.  That strikes me as annoying to play through.
[2010-01-16 14:28:05] <Nyamagomi> Okay.  Re:randoms.  I'm fine with the onfield/aggro idea.  Though I wouldn't want, say, min aggro = no aggro.  And I'm NOT a fan of a lot of scripted randoms.  Plot fights are one thing, but...

[Hunter Sopko]

Excal, as a DnD player, I know so little of hexes that it isn't even funny.

Play more Battletech, foo.

[AndrewRogue]

I should.

[Excal]

The amusing thing, Andy, is that I got that number by taking my D&D mat, and looking at the other side which is all in hexes and counting.

Anyways, I've...  done my best to read through all of that text, though the formatting makes it easy for the eyes to slip from time to time.  So, thoughts.

Character Switching & Timed Hits
   Still strongly against both of these.  Timed Hits are largely because this is a highly tactical system.  So I generally feel that if you need the timed hits to keep engaged, then we as designers have failed.  Then again, I will also admit that I suck at timed hits, which also makes me dislike games with them as a matter of course.
   Character switching joins timed hits as something which I disagree with.  In this case, it's mostly because there won't be surplus characters in order to do this except for a minority of the game.  Not to mention...  the details listed here really do make it sound kinda impractical even with all the add ons.  And making it something that's really only useful or necessary for gimmick fights will not endear it to people.

On uniqueness.
   I like the energy, but not the direction.  It sounds like what you're aiming for here is to have 16 or more characters, who not only have different methods of learning skills, but who also have different mechanics for using their skills in combat?  I'm not even sure I could, with time for research, name 16 different ways of learning skills already in use in published RPGs.  This is not to argue against uniqueness.  I mean, FF6 tried something similar, and it worked.  But it also was not as ambitious.  As I recall, there was one line where you stated that the mechanics should be based around what the characters can do.

This is the philosophy that I feel is in error.  I feel it is backwards.

Our best design here is to start with a central concept.  A simple concept.  For example, everyone has abilities, and there are limitations on said abilities.

Then, add a complexity.  Something which alters the central concept, and does so in different ways.  For example, some people start with a full bar of MP but never restore it, while others start with an empty MP bar but regenerate it, and a third group has no MP, but their skills take time to recharge after use.

Then, take these fractured ideas, and now make your characters, each one taking an aspect of the core idea, and doing something unique with it.  For example, have a character who regenerates MP, whose skills use MP, but who also has a passive skill that improves his stats based on how much MP he has.  Or perhaps a character who takes longer to recharge his abilities fully, but can also use these abilities before they're recharged for less power whereas others must wait until their powers are fully charged before they can be used again.


This, I feel, is a better path to walk, because each character will be different.  But they will also all feel like they share an underlying similarity.  That they were all formed from a common foundation as opposed to simply being the results of a random brainstorming session.


Finally, just some minor notes.  I'd argue for a movement range of 1-3 hexes.  Being able to run the entire length of the field feels like it's offering too much flexibility for what should be small field tactics.  Do like the idea ST effects though, as it does allow for a nice differentiation between ST, GT (or should it be Hex Targetting), AoE (Multiple Hexes), and MT (All Hexes).  I would also argue that allowing special randoms and bosses to change the hex pattern would also be worthwhile.

[Talaysen]

On the other hand, character switching really needs some disadvantage or it's just kinda broke. Like, in FFX or Mana Khemia there's no objective reason (most of the time) to start with anyone but the fastest PCs because you can just rotate others in using their first turns. That strikes me as degenerate and nonsensical - Auron is slow but he can outspeed everyone if Rikku slaps his hand or something? what

When it takes your turn, you only do it for one of the main reasons that has been suggested we have it at all - you run up against a battle where you think "oh shit, specific PC X would -totally- be useful here". Mostly a boss thing of course.

Though, it doesn't have to take a turn as long as there's some other price attached. MMXCM is probably my personal favourite here - doesn't take a turn, but a character who switches in doesn't get WE for that turn which is a significant downside and prevents degeneration. Granted, this is a mechanic very specific to MMXCM (few games have something like WE) but you get the idea.

I'm fine with there being some other penalty involved, but I really hate it when it uses up a turn.  Even if I think another PC is "better suited" for a fight I oftentimes don't find it worth using a turn to switch them in.  Perhaps their stats could be lowered on the first turn they come in or something.  There's some things we could do to make it more expensive than a free lunch.

Ninja edit: Excal, Wild Arms 5 had a different hex pattern for most boss fights, and it depended on the boss fight, so something like that could be used in some cases.

[DjinnAndTonic]

I'm fine with there being some other penalty involved, but I really hate it when it uses up a turn.  Even if I think another PC is "better suited" for a fight I oftentimes don't find it worth using a turn to switch them in.  Perhaps their stats could be lowered on the first turn they come in or something.  There's some things we could do to make it more expensive than a free lunch.

Ninja edit: Excal, Wild Arms 5 had a different hex pattern for most boss fights, and it depended on the boss fight, so something like that could be used in some cases.

By our proposed example, Character switching already has the penalty of 'having to move to one of the switch points'. If we're that concerned about character switching being 'too good', we can just decrease the number of switch points.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

If you're going to use a hex grid, you might as well give the different facings meaning. For example: all characters, regardless of handedness, can attack the three sides of their hex in front of them. Nobody can attack behind them. Righties can attack the rear right hex, lefties the rear left. If you're ambidextrous, you can attack both rear left and rear right with one of your two weapons (thus dealing half damage). Also, which direction they are attacked from could hinder your chance to hit, FFT-style. As a rule, rear hex > blindside hex > side hexes they can attack > front. Shields would allow the character to treat the blindside hex as a standard side hex for purposes of evasion.

[074]

Actually, a general concensus was just to say "fuck facing", due to the increasing complexity it would provide.

[Cmdr_King]

Character switching joins timed hits as something which I disagree with.  In this case, it's mostly because there won't be surplus characters in order to do this except for a minority of the game.

If we're supposing 4 active characters, then having 5 or 6 total characters within each party is pretty easy.  At that level, character switching isn't something you make a core mechanic (which we've moved away from anyway), but is something you can have available.

Hm.  On the note of penalties, perhaps a movement penalty for freshly switched in characters?

[Dark Holy Elf]

By our proposed example, Character switching already has the penalty of 'having to move to one of the switch points'.

All that does is create an arbitrary penalty for switching in melee fighters, but not ranged fighters. Bad idea.

(EDIT: For Cmdr, movement penalty upon switching has the same problem.)

Even if I think another PC is "better suited" for a fight I oftentimes don't find it worth using a turn to switch them in.

Then perhaps the fight wasn't really suited for that second character. This sounds more like a problem of a game failing to differentiate its characters enough to justify character switching to me. For instance, in Xenosaga 2, switching was very much a real option despite taking a turn, because the characters had considerable differences and battles were longer so one turn wasn't as big a deal.

Bear in mind that we also have the option of switching taking, say, half a turn, since we're running with CTB (i.e. character A switches out, B appears on the battlefield, with her CT gauge half filled). This feels more elegant than lowered stats to me.

Seems like character switching may be one of the first things that just needs to be settled by a vote.


Also chiming in that in a 19-hex grid, move stats of 1-3 seems most appropriate. Heavy armoured characters and some inathletic-looking mage types move 1, more balanced characters move 2, and maybe one or two freaks move 3? Pending individual balance for each character of course. Could work.

How many PCs would be stackable in one hex? I feel like 3 is my kneejerk. Also, I support that the player can determine a starting formation of the PCs on a few of the hexes (maybe a corner hex and the three adjacent to it). It always seemed a bit random from a realism standpoint that in WA4/5 PCs would spawn in hexes which are often a bad setup for the player. Though the variety it provided did make for more engaging fights...

[Talaysen]

By our proposed example, Character switching already has the penalty of 'having to move to one of the switch points'.

All that does is create an arbitrary penalty for switching in melee fighters, but not ranged fighters. Bad idea.

(EDIT: For Cmdr, movement penalty upon switching has the same problem.)

Switch points were there more for a realism aspect, it just doubled as a bit of a penalty.  Doesn't make much sense to be able to switch from a hex in the middle of the battlefield.

Even if I think another PC is "better suited" for a fight I oftentimes don't find it worth using a turn to switch them in.

Then perhaps the fight wasn't really suited for that second character. This sounds more like a problem of a game failing to differentiate its characters enough to justify character switching to me. For instance, in Xenosaga 2, switching was very much a real option despite taking a turn, because the characters had considerable differences and battles were longer so one turn wasn't as big a deal.

Bear in mind that we also have the option of switching taking, say, half a turn, since we're running with CTB (i.e. character A switches out, B appears on the battlefield, with her CT gauge half filled). This feels more elegant than lowered stats to me.

Perhaps you're right.  I think "notably faster action than a normal turn" would be enough for me anyway.

---

Facing determining where you can hit is dumb.  Just freaking turn around if you want to hit behind you.  Don't mind it having some bearing in other ways but I don't really care since it does add complexity that may not be needed.

[AndrewRogue]

Since the inclusion of character switching at all (not just the specifics) does seem to be fairly split, I will indeed use my amazing powers as guy who posted the topic to call for a vote.

So, do you want character switching included in the game? If yes, then:

##VOTE: YEA

If no, then:

##VOTE: NAY

Majority vote as of deadline will carry on this matter. Please avoid conditionals, as this is strictly to decide whether or not the concept will be carried in our current skeleton, not the implementation.

[OblivionKnight]

To quote CSI:

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Or Yea >_>)

[Yoshiken]

##VOTE: YEA

[Hunter Sopko]

::Bribes people with Chocolate and Mr. Gency's Mirrors::