As I was brainstorming at Holly's coffee shop today, I had another thought for feedback.
Before I explain the thought, here's the background. I plan that each class (Mage, Rouge, Fighter, Ranger) will have about twelve to fifteen abilities. It is possible to divide these into three separate groups, and that has worked pretty well for Blizzard. Such a division could be superfluous, but for now imagine it.
The thought concerns how to divide up the abilities of mages and later the warlock/necromancer or otherwise "evil wizard" class.
Grouping for Mage class seem to fall into three, but maybe four? First group is "Enchantment/Charm" which is anything that affects the mental state of enemy of buffs non-living matter. Sleep and confusion obviously belong here. A buff to character INT belongs here. A second group might be "Invocation" which is where all the dramatic energy things like fireballs and lightening bolts come from. A third might be "manipulation" These spells, rather than summoning energy, alter present matter somehow. A spells that hardens skin (and thus buffs armor) or dramatically reduces the temperature of something belong here.
The only things that doesn't fit very well in this scheme are invisibility spells. Or a "mirror image" spell. Basically, spells that deal with light might not fit so squarely into manipulation category.
For the "evil mage" archetype, I think it is much easier. I can think of three categories. The first could be just generically called "Perdition" and that is any destructive spell. A second could be maleficium, which include curses and hexes. The third would be "demon magic" or something that draws power directly from evil spirits.
Either way, I'm happy to say that this game design slowly progresses toward the goal.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Why Damage types at all?
First, thanks to James and Alexander for commenting in the previous blog. Those kinds of things really keep me going. Don't feel like you have to tell other programmers about this blog, though the more input the better!
Since this blog is still on the subject of damage types and resistances. I have asked for the brainstorming, and I still fail to explain they "why" of the need for damage types. We need damage types because of the need to fulfill the RPG mantra: "Easy to Learn, Difficult to Master."
Please meditate on that while floating in the lotus position. oooohhhmmmmmm..
An example why might help. Let's say that I designed a game that was easy to learn, but not hard to master. In this game, players have hit points, an attack rating, and an armor rating. Higher numbers are better. Charter A has "10 Attack" "12 Armor" and 50 hp. Character B has exactly the same. There are no other imbalancing variables or hidden knowledge from the players in the game. This is going to be rather boring duel. I might as well flip a coin to see who wins.
The player who controls character A is getting an edge on this easy to learn, easy to master game. He increase his attack to 13. Now he wins most fights. This means he has just mastered the game. The only other thing another character can do is either increase his armor or his attack. This game is now mastered, and it is also boring. This is pretty much how Castle Age feels, if you have ever played that game.
How can this made a little bit more difficult to master? By adding imbalancing forces, specifically damage types and resistances. Lets say that Character A and Character B are fighting again. This time, however, Character A is using electrical damage. Character B is wearing metal armor. Electrical damage will do extra damage to metal armor, thus exploiting a weakness. Character B could go into fights with leather armor instead, but that would lower his overall armor rating. Players then would face a challenge of what armor they wanted to wear and what kind of attacks they wanted to use.
Notice, that emphasis here is not on a complete, rigid, realism. If realism was the focus, than all players would die in a single fireball. They would all be crippled by a single arrow, they would all most likely die after getting hit only two or three times. Could such a game make a great RPG in which players develop their characters over long periods of time? Where they fight battles that last several rounds? Not entirely.
Now, there is certainly room for realism. I am not sure how much though. Think about every RPG that you have played. What was the level of realism in it? Obviously, there is such a thing as being completely over-the-top, but do you generally find that RPG game mechanics are concentrating on how realistic the battles and damage mechanics are? This is an open question. I am an RPG veteran, but I have by no means been playing them over the last few years.
Why not add a few damage types now?
Since this blog is still on the subject of damage types and resistances. I have asked for the brainstorming, and I still fail to explain they "why" of the need for damage types. We need damage types because of the need to fulfill the RPG mantra: "Easy to Learn, Difficult to Master."
Please meditate on that while floating in the lotus position. oooohhhmmmmmm..
An example why might help. Let's say that I designed a game that was easy to learn, but not hard to master. In this game, players have hit points, an attack rating, and an armor rating. Higher numbers are better. Charter A has "10 Attack" "12 Armor" and 50 hp. Character B has exactly the same. There are no other imbalancing variables or hidden knowledge from the players in the game. This is going to be rather boring duel. I might as well flip a coin to see who wins.
The player who controls character A is getting an edge on this easy to learn, easy to master game. He increase his attack to 13. Now he wins most fights. This means he has just mastered the game. The only other thing another character can do is either increase his armor or his attack. This game is now mastered, and it is also boring. This is pretty much how Castle Age feels, if you have ever played that game.
How can this made a little bit more difficult to master? By adding imbalancing forces, specifically damage types and resistances. Lets say that Character A and Character B are fighting again. This time, however, Character A is using electrical damage. Character B is wearing metal armor. Electrical damage will do extra damage to metal armor, thus exploiting a weakness. Character B could go into fights with leather armor instead, but that would lower his overall armor rating. Players then would face a challenge of what armor they wanted to wear and what kind of attacks they wanted to use.
Notice, that emphasis here is not on a complete, rigid, realism. If realism was the focus, than all players would die in a single fireball. They would all be crippled by a single arrow, they would all most likely die after getting hit only two or three times. Could such a game make a great RPG in which players develop their characters over long periods of time? Where they fight battles that last several rounds? Not entirely.
Now, there is certainly room for realism. I am not sure how much though. Think about every RPG that you have played. What was the level of realism in it? Obviously, there is such a thing as being completely over-the-top, but do you generally find that RPG game mechanics are concentrating on how realistic the battles and damage mechanics are? This is an open question. I am an RPG veteran, but I have by no means been playing them over the last few years.
Why not add a few damage types now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)