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

[Excal]

Doma, the issue with that is that it, honestly, just changes what the 'best party' is.  That said, if a multiple party solution is used, it's likely character choice won't be an issue dealt with until lategame anyways.  And even that, the theoretical system would still be able to handle it if the party kept on splitting up.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I don't see the point of level scaling. If enemies are levelling with you, why are you even levelling at all? It's acceptable for very open-ended RPGs (like Fallout) but my assumption is that we're going to do something a bit more linear. Honestly, level scaling is pretty akin to throwing out levelling entirely, except that it's still there because RPGs have to have it or some similarly stupid argument.

Also, non-level scaling means level is virtually a form of difficulty. Want a harder game? Do a LLG. Want an easier game? Go grind some. While I am fine with using a Suikoden/CC style system of generally constraining levels so we can balance around them, I am not fine with making said levels ironclad or scaling enemies against your levels, which just makes levels pointless except for cosmetics.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

If enemies are levelling with you, why are you even levelling at all?

To gain new abilities, which is the "fun" part of gaining a new level? I get psyched because Albel just learned Vampiric Flash, not because he just gained 4 points of strength, 3 points of defense and 4 points of agility.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Okay, rephrase, then: why are you gaining stats from levels at all?

(Additionally, from what we've discussed, we're going to be gaining lots of abilities through methods besides gaining levels.)

[AndrewRogue]

On Movement: To get this going, I wanted to bring up the question of whether character movement should be controlled by PCs.

Having looked at some Grandia 3 videos, I realize the idea that having movement would break up the flow somewhat if we went for a match. The other side of the equation is that, in my experience, not being able to control PC movement is immensely frustrating. How often have you had your PCs group up in ways that made them eat tons of horrible AoE damage? How about refusing to position in the one way that will let them nail the enemies with their AoE attacks?

Do you think it might be possible to just use a small, lightly hex based field (with people able to occupy the same squares and no positional blocking), maybe? That way you can make movement a simple affair that wouldn't overly interfere with the flow, but still allow it, perhaps?

On Levelling: I think setting up for a range being hard to fall outside of unless you are a severely dedicated grinder (and perhaps outright impossible in Hard mode). We can allow for some variance within the range, but I think we should definitely aim for having a set range that's hard to fall outside of.

On Allowing PCs to Be Used: I think the combination of multiple parties, unique skillsets, (maybe some inter-party supports or what have you), (maybe some fights that require you to use odd-ball PC set-ups on hard modes), etc, should encourage using some variety while allowing people to play with the PCs they actually want.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Okay, rephrase, then: why are you gaining stats from levels at all?

I'm entirely okay with you not gaining stats from levels FFVI-style, actually. I don't think they need to be intrinsically linked at all. I see a level cap as more a limit on your ability/stat template than any sort of "reach me and you are a god" ideal. Getting to the level cap is bleh, the challenge should be how well you can operate within the confines of the level cap.

[AndrewRogue]

Also, to be honest, even if everything scales so levels are essentially meaningless... they create the illusion of progress and/or can make specific elements of the game easier.

[DjinnAndTonic]

I'm happy with a CC-esque levelling cap. It's especially helpful if we decide to make skills dependent on enemy rewards (Thinking like Puniyo/Nikki here). That way there's still a point to fighting randoms, but there's no power-levelling. Until near the endgame, where I think a power-levelling option should open up because that's when power-levelling is actually fun. See N1 fans and why we love the aftergame more than the main game.

I'm still very much in favor of character switching. There's nothing more frustrating that getting to a boss and realizing, "Man, I wish I had brought Red XIII for this, his Limits would be awesome here!" or somesuch. It also encourages using more of the cast, which I'm always happy with. Additionally, I'd be okay with characters getting equal experience, not based on use. This keeps the whole cast useful throughout the game. However, since skills can be acquired in different methods, it would encourage using the characters you like more to get better skills for them.

This also implies a proposition that "Levelling increases stats; sidequests/jobsystem/equipment/whatever determines skills, unique to each character".

Movement? BoF5 style just works well, combined with Grandia's "input command"->"command activation"->"wait for next turn" timeline. The only difference being that the player controls the PC's movement with BoF5-style controls. This is also a good way to implement switching in a more realistic manner, with there being certain zones where you can switch PCs.

Also, during the 'command activation' phase is a good time to implement timed hits/judgment ring style interactivity so that you don't just put the characters on 'auto'. I don't recommend timed blocking; timed criticals seems easier to balance.

Overpowered mains - Don't need them, but there's no reason that we can't make sure that each of our mains' playstyles particularly unique, even if they aren't 'overpowered'.

[Magic Fanatic]

Resources: Items:

Otherwise... the only idea I really want to comment on is items.  I always feel, in any game with highly restricted, unbuyable basic items, that the game is cheating me, trying to artificially amp the difficulty.  This also leads, not unlike Conspicuous Resource Drain Dungeons, to simply never using any items at all and having them in ridiculous supply such that I couldn't use them if I wanted to in the endgame.  So yeah, definitely think they should be balanced in some other manner than sheer supply.  Could be something relatively simple like giving you other options for your money and thus forcing the player to choose (tricky, but not impossible), could be complex things like having high drawbacks to in-battle use and thus making them more about post-battle recovery.

This. Make it so that the items have a huge charge time or something. Make them easy to get, not -too- useless, but just... really situational in battle, and useless outside of it (unless we include some kind of fusion/alchemy thing. Then they at least get another use!)

As I said before, if we're going to have items, while in battle, why not have them impose a regen effect instead of a full effect all at once?...  While in battle, at least.

For example.  You see this Ether?  It restores 100 MP.  Use it in battle, and you get 10 MP per turn until you get all 100 of that MP.  Hi-Potion?  50 HP a turn for the next 10 turns.  Outside of battle, however, their total use is halved or quartered, so that Ether would only give you 25 or 50 MP when you're not in a battle.  That...  Might balance them somewhat?

[Talaysen]

Not a fan of hard levelling caps.  If someone wants to level grind just let them.  You can make it hard to do so but don't take that option away completely.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Oh yeah, this probably goes without saying, but no to true random encounters. At the very least, our enemies should be visible on screen a la CC or modern Tales.

Even better if we make them entirely optional, like TWEWY. Fight randoms when you need it. We can have an abundance of forced encounters that aren't necessarily 'bosses' to go along with this as a balancing measure.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Oh yeah, this probably goes without saying, but no to true random encounters. At the very least, our enemies should be visible on screen a la CC or modern Tales.

Does anyone think that invisible randoms are a good thing? Even those fuckheads who make Final Fantasy games seem to have finally figured that out. Way I see it, invisible randoms are like having to write down passwords to save your progress, characters who have two frames of animation, and excessive fog in every level.

[AndrewRogue]

[quote author=DjinnAndTonic link=topic=4488.msg93709#msg93709 date=1263451995
Even better if we make them entirely optional, like TWEWY. Fight randoms when you need it. We can have an abundance of forced encounters that aren't necessarily 'bosses' to go along with this as a balancing measure.
[/quote]

This. Fits better with our efforts to curtail grinding as necessity or answer, and perhaps will contribute to a solution for items.

[Yakumo]

I can't speak for everyone obviously, but TWEWY's system annoyed me because I'm one of those people that hates grinding, and fighting randoms that are wholly optional like that feels like grinding.  At least with randoms on the field they're actively trying to get you into a fight usually and as such encounters feel like part of the main sequence.  When the encounters appear to be totally optional but really aren't since you need to do them regardless, it gets on my nerves.  I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well or if anyone else feels this way, but figured I'd get this out there.

On a more mechanical level, if you do go with entirely optional randoms, how do you plan to balance any required fights?  Assume no fighting?  Assume fighting everything?  Something in the middle?  If you balance for no fights or make it so the rewards don't affect the balance much, then some people aren't going to fight anything.  If you balance for a lot of fighting, why make the encounters optional in the first place, since you're just going to screw someone over.

One possible option is something like the random encounter system from Parasite Eve, changed a little bit.  In PE, there were no random encounters, only areas where a fight had a chance to start when you walked into them.  The first time you hit them, you always got a fight, and the chances went down from there for other times you wander into that screen.  If you added onto that some on-screen indication that there were monsters at those spots, it may work for you. 

I guess I really have to ask what it is people hate about the invisible randoms, so I know what kind of suggestions to make.  I don't have a problem with them, so another thing I would have suggested is something like the Ar Tonelico 2 system, which has invisible randoms but also has a gauge that empties as you fight.  As it goes down it seemed like the encounter rate got lower(not sure on that, that's just memories of vague impressions), and when the gauge emptied there were no more random encounters.  For people that want to power up a bit more, if you exited and entered an area the gauge refilled.  For people that just want to explore and look for stuff while not being bothered, eventually there were items you could use to empty the gauge.  Worked pretty well for me but I, again, don't have anything against invisible randoms.

[AndrewRogue]

More on movement: Having given this more thought, I do agree that BoFV movement is bad in this instance. There's too much niggling to be done with it to game ranges just right and what have you. I'm really starting to think that the idea might be something akin to WA5's hex grid, field wise. Maybe. I thiiiiink it'd allow us to introduce elements of strategic meanuvers and plotting, without cramping the fluidity of the system too much. Also potentially has some use in terms of some ideas I had, but that's neither here nor there at the moment. I dunno. What do people actually think about this?

More on items: The more I think, the more I want to agree that items should be relegated to purely out of battle/"camp" shenanigans. A big thrust of what we seem to be aiming for here are dynamic PCs and parties and universal item use... just sort of muddies the water in that regard. So long as we're smart about ability spreads on PCs and keep some considerations in mind, it should be fully possible to make a game where you only get access to the character abilities during battle. Further, it goes a ways towards having people analyze character dynamics and provides some give and take to PC choices.

In theory, at least. In practice, it could utterly blow.

I want to put here that we might want to keep this general discussion sidelined a bit. While it does relate and is important, it also feels like it might massively depend on what we actually do WITH resources. So it might be better to address that concept first.

On characters: I'm still vaguely in favor of making character switching a possibility, but I'm getting foggy on how to reasonably implement it.

On character use: Have we discussed the potential for some sort of combination attacks? I saw that Grandia appears to have a combo system of sorts, which makes me wonder if special combination techs would be possible. Ties into other ideas I have floating around, but also, again, provides different reasons for different character use. Might also be possible to use it to make more unorthodox party combinations under a no item view more doable.

[074]

Andy: No combo techs exist in Grandia, if that's what you're thinking.  At least, not to my knowledge.  It's simply # of hits in rapid succession, which, if it does anything, is likely just increasing damage per hit as it goes up.

[AndrewRogue]

I more meant, would such an idea be implausible to implement into the Grandia style battle system?

[Excal]

Well, if we start with the Air launch system introduced with Grandia 3, yes, you could do that fairly easily.  It has a system where you have air combos, which are essentially special attacks only done when you use a combo attack on someone who is in midair.  And you have a couple of different ways of launching them.  And there's a few ways of doing this.  You could have the combo trigger if you have the right combo of launcher and combo attacker, or, if you have multiple people who will hit their combo, then you could have appropriate people either go straight to a combo strike, or have them chain as normal and then launch into their combined attack.  I think I'd prefer the second of those three options since the math people could still balance it easily enough, and it'd take less time to animate.

As for movement, I thought what'd be done was more adapt the Lunar system of letting you decide where you move when you use the Defend command.  That lets you move freely while not making it a huge part of the system.

[Yakumo]

As for movement, I thought what'd be done was more adapt the Lunar system of letting you decide where you move when you use the Defend command.  That lets you move freely while not making it a huge part of the system.

You can do that in Grandia anyway.  At least you could in 2, don't remember about 3 but I don't know why they would have removed it.  It's not entirely free movement but there's certain points you pick and then your character moves there while the battle continues.

edit: Now that I think about it, I'm almost certain 3 had it, since I seem to recall using it to get out of Xorn's huge AoE move(Death Knell or whatever?) since I didn't trust the characters to run out of it on their own if they did something else.

[Excal]

Weird, I recall it less as picking where you move, and more as the characters try to get out of the way (Not always, though usually, successfully).

On that note, one thing I forgot to mention earlier.  I knew there was something that was striking me as off about the TWEWY style randoms, but having never played it, I couldn't think of what exactly it was.  And Yakko's kinda put it in words for me.  Fighting random battles for the sake of random battles or loot is...  pointless.  It feels like grinding.  And...  yeah, is worse than invisible encounters which I honestly don't mind at all.

I mean, if a random is something that is between here and there, then it has a certain feel of inevitability.  This was going to happen regardless, or this was part of the sequence.  Whereas if you have to actively choose to do so, then I will ignore it and happily move on, and if I later find I need to level to face a boss, then I will go back to those randoms, but it won't be random encounters, it'll be forced grinding because that's exactly what it is.  It's not something that happens, or not, as you move through an area.  It's something you have to consciously choose to do, and if you don't choose to do it, then if you later have to, then it's forced.

[AndrewRogue]

Hrm. That is actually a fair point. I guess we could go the on-screen enemies route.

An area consists of X forced fights, and an number of evadable enemies. The forced fights basically keep the PCs you are using on level (and provide obstacles on the way), while the optional enemies are presented as a challenge you have to bypass either on the map (whee, evasion) or defeat. This allows you to make active choices about grinding, while not entirely setting it aside. Perhaps add in something like enemies don't respawn in plot forced areas, but rather other areas (where you can do some monster extermination for ye locale townsefolke to give it some in-game meaning) are where you'd go if you are a bad naughty powergamer and just want to try and outgrind the Suiko-exp?

Seems like it'd combine the best of all elements?

More on the subject of customizable characters: I've concluded that this might be workable within the framework of every given PC. Simply make sure that all the options on the grid (or the cast majority, I guess we could have some standard stat boost ones) relate to altering/enhancing a specific character and their movesets. This would give more incentive for people to experiment with PCs and add a little extra something to PCs you don't initially like as you'd be able to do some alterations along the lines (emphasizing character traits you like, for example).

But then we will really want to hard cap PC numbers in theory. Because we're starting to enter the potentially TOO MUCH INFO TO PROCESS stage for players unless we introduce elements gradually and fluidly which... could be hard if we want to try and stick a lot of unique mechanics in there.

[dude789]

Andy: No combo techs exist in Grandia, if that's what you're thinking.  At least, not to my knowledge.  It's simply # of hits in rapid succession, which, if it does anything, is likely just increasing damage per hit as it goes up.

Grandia Xtreme had combo techs. Basically the character waits at the input bar until the other character in the combo reaches it and then they both started charging. I think a few Grandia 3 enemies used combo techs and it worked the same way.

As far as randoms go, what if we used a combination of visible randoms with something like WA3's system. Random would wonder around and if you didn't want to fight them you could activate "stealth mode" or whatever you want to call it where randoms wouldn't notice you if you got close and you wouldn't fight them unless you initiated the encounter. You could limit stealth mode so that it had a bar that would decrease as you use it and could be refilled by resting at an inn or finding items which restore it.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Note that TWEWY's system balances itself well. In addition to optional encounters, it also has an adjustable difficulty level. You could fight maybe 3 randoms on hard mode and then take out a boss on Easy mode. It's a good game like that. Additionally, to progress, there were often quests where you were specifically asked to take out a particular fight or two. And later in the game, to talk to NPCs, you had to open up the 'random encounter viewfinder', and some randoms would go after you in that mode. There was also a fair number of forced randoms, but the encounter system was by and large optional and the game can be notably short if you power through it and are skilled at the battle system. Practicing the battle system itself was a good reason to play through randoms as well.

There's more to it that helps balance this sense of 'optional=grindingzOMGBAD!" that's been brought up, but it would be easier for you to play the game than for me to try to explain every feature here. It's a very well-integrated game.

[Excal]

True, but it also sounds like the game was very explicitely designed around this mechanic.  And without that, the whole thing falls flat.

[074]

More on the subject of customizable characters: I've concluded that this might be workable within the framework of every given PC. Simply make sure that all the options on the grid (or the cast majority, I guess we could have some standard stat boost ones) relate to altering/enhancing a specific character and their movesets. This would give more incentive for people to experiment with PCs and add a little extra something to PCs you don't initially like as you'd be able to do some alterations along the lines (emphasizing character traits you like, for example).

But then we will really want to hard cap PC numbers in theory. Because we're starting to enter the potentially TOO MUCH INFO TO PROCESS stage for players unless we introduce elements gradually and fluidly which... could be hard if we want to try and stick a lot of unique mechanics in there.

And the hard part there is thinking of characters' whose movesets can be enhanced in a non-generic way.  I already have a couple of PC ideas--though I admit that one is likely unfeasible due to the size of the resultant skillset.  (The concept might also be better fitting for an antagonist, but that's probably jumping the gun a bit)

On a non-tangential side, however, the ideas would be as follows: Stat boosts, "ability type" boosts (IE: With certain types of equipment and/or elements), "Side effects" (obviously, adding them to certain specials), and...possibly some character-specific stuff--not sure if it would be a grid ala FFX/DDS2, or a set of character-specific trees.  If the former, it'd be an idea to try to keep non-statboost stuff that would subtly benefit multiple characters--otherwise, we'd be better off locking each character off into their own subtree or pursuing a different form of customization.