WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Yeah, I was thinking of making the attack picks random, but I was thinking the pick a skill each attack would be there to add more strategy in and make it so the player had more choices and options. I agree that all fights should be beatable in many ways, if you are good enough.

You're saying it should be realtime - well, the issue with that is that people will just get by all the bosses and harder fights by spamming E or whatever is their most damaging skill. They wouldn't even get scratched. Instead, you should have to pick ONE skill per attack - and certain attacks would need a certain skill to evade. This means players either have to choose - do they defend and play the waiting game, waiting for a good opening to strike, or do they attack and hope that they defeat their foe before their health is reduced to nothing.

Get where I'm coming from? If everyone has X attacks, people will just find whatever has the highest DPS when spammed and spam it, evading whatever they can in the process. Whereas if certain attacks NEED certain skills, and you only make them able to use one skill per attack, they must make that trade off - sacrifice a damage opportunity, or sacrifice hitpoints. In addition, the choice slowing the game down ACTUALLY HAS AN ADVANTAGE. It gives players an easy stopping point. Need to go grab dinner? Okay, play out the execution phase and don't make another selection. Hand getting tired? Take a break during a Selection Phase.

If bosses are going to be any sort of long fight, people will have hand cramps. Trust me, I know. Many RPGs I've played fall short in that aspect. The controls for efficient combat are awkward. Many turn-based RPGs are great in that aspect, because you just take a break on your turn. Basically, I think phase-oriented combat is better as it gives you A. easy breaks, and B. more strategy and thus more thought and immersion in the game.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Yeah, I was thinking of making the attack picks random, but I was thinking the pick a skill each attack would be there to add more strategy in and make it so the player had more choices and options. I agree that all fights should be beatable in many ways, if you are good enough.

You're saying it should be realtime - well, the issue with that is that people will just get by all the bosses and harder fights by spamming E or whatever is their most damaging skill. They wouldn't even get scratched. Instead, you should have to pick ONE skill per attack - and certain attacks would need a certain skill to evade. This means players either have to choose - do they defend and play the waiting game, waiting for a good opening to strike, or do they attack and hope that they defeat their foe before their health is reduced to nothing.

Get where I'm coming from? If everyone has X attacks, people will just find whatever has the highest DPS when spammed and spam it, evading whatever they can in the process. Whereas if certain attacks NEED certain skills, and you only make them able to use one skill per attack, they must make that trade off - sacrifice a damage opportunity, or sacrifice hitpoints. In addition, the choice slowing the game down ACTUALLY HAS AN ADVANTAGE. It gives players an easy stopping point. Need to go grab dinner? Okay, play out the execution phase and don't make another selection. Hand getting tired? Take a break during a Selection Phase.

If bosses are going to be any sort of long fight, people will have hand cramps. Trust me, I know. Many RPGs I've played fall short in that aspect. The controls for efficient combat are awkward. Many turn-based RPGs are great in that aspect, because you just take a break on your turn. Basically, I think phase-oriented combat is better as it gives you A. easy breaks, and B. more strategy and thus more thought and immersion in the game.

You make a good argument. However, I still believe a real-time battle would work for immersion purposes, and it CAN still be strategic.

For example, let's say there's a boss that disables a couple of the attacks you would have, and some of the bosses have attacks that block some different ones. They could switch it up differently; this would require you to use different attacks. Some attacks could have longer times to charge it up, but deal lots of damage (getting hit during charge could stop attack), and some could be quick but low-damage attacks. The attacks could even be elemental in this aspect to make it much easier to tell which attacks could get disabled.

We can also implement interesting top-down battlefields for this, with walls in the middle as well. Work could be done on making different boss attacks, say, ricochet off of walls, cause icy slippery floors, and the like.

If we want the player to take a break… Should a pause button be added?

WolfCat67 wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Yeah, I was thinking of making the attack picks random, but I was thinking the pick a skill each attack would be there to add more strategy in and make it so the player had more choices and options. I agree that all fights should be beatable in many ways, if you are good enough.

You're saying it should be realtime - well, the issue with that is that people will just get by all the bosses and harder fights by spamming E or whatever is their most damaging skill. They wouldn't even get scratched. Instead, you should have to pick ONE skill per attack - and certain attacks would need a certain skill to evade. This means players either have to choose - do they defend and play the waiting game, waiting for a good opening to strike, or do they attack and hope that they defeat their foe before their health is reduced to nothing.

Get where I'm coming from? If everyone has X attacks, people will just find whatever has the highest DPS when spammed and spam it, evading whatever they can in the process. Whereas if certain attacks NEED certain skills, and you only make them able to use one skill per attack, they must make that trade off - sacrifice a damage opportunity, or sacrifice hitpoints. In addition, the choice slowing the game down ACTUALLY HAS AN ADVANTAGE. It gives players an easy stopping point. Need to go grab dinner? Okay, play out the execution phase and don't make another selection. Hand getting tired? Take a break during a Selection Phase.

If bosses are going to be any sort of long fight, people will have hand cramps. Trust me, I know. Many RPGs I've played fall short in that aspect. The controls for efficient combat are awkward. Many turn-based RPGs are great in that aspect, because you just take a break on your turn. Basically, I think phase-oriented combat is better as it gives you A. easy breaks, and B. more strategy and thus more thought and immersion in the game.

You make a good argument. However, I still believe a real-time battle would work for immersion purposes, and it CAN still be strategic.

For example, let's say there's a boss that disables a couple of the attacks you would have, and some of the bosses have attacks that block some different ones. They could switch it up differently; this would require you to use different attacks. Some attacks could have longer times to charge it up, but deal lots of damage (getting hit during charge could stop attack), and some could be quick but low-damage attacks. The attacks could even be elemental in this aspect to make it much easier to tell which attacks could get disabled.

We can also implement interesting top-down battlefields for this, with walls in the middle as well. Work could be done on making different boss attacks, say, ricochet off of walls, cause icy slippery floors, and the like.

If we want the player to take a break… Should a pause button be added?

A pause button could be added, but then there would be users who used it to accurately predict ricochets and not get a general idea.

Also, we're thinking the exact same thing. I'm just thinking of adding on a planning esque phase and limiting the player's power to one ability in addition to what you're thinking.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Yeah, I was thinking of making the attack picks random, but I was thinking the pick a skill each attack would be there to add more strategy in and make it so the player had more choices and options. I agree that all fights should be beatable in many ways, if you are good enough.

You're saying it should be realtime - well, the issue with that is that people will just get by all the bosses and harder fights by spamming E or whatever is their most damaging skill. They wouldn't even get scratched. Instead, you should have to pick ONE skill per attack - and certain attacks would need a certain skill to evade. This means players either have to choose - do they defend and play the waiting game, waiting for a good opening to strike, or do they attack and hope that they defeat their foe before their health is reduced to nothing.

Get where I'm coming from? If everyone has X attacks, people will just find whatever has the highest DPS when spammed and spam it, evading whatever they can in the process. Whereas if certain attacks NEED certain skills, and you only make them able to use one skill per attack, they must make that trade off - sacrifice a damage opportunity, or sacrifice hitpoints. In addition, the choice slowing the game down ACTUALLY HAS AN ADVANTAGE. It gives players an easy stopping point. Need to go grab dinner? Okay, play out the execution phase and don't make another selection. Hand getting tired? Take a break during a Selection Phase.

If bosses are going to be any sort of long fight, people will have hand cramps. Trust me, I know. Many RPGs I've played fall short in that aspect. The controls for efficient combat are awkward. Many turn-based RPGs are great in that aspect, because you just take a break on your turn. Basically, I think phase-oriented combat is better as it gives you A. easy breaks, and B. more strategy and thus more thought and immersion in the game.

You make a good argument. However, I still believe a real-time battle would work for immersion purposes, and it CAN still be strategic.

For example, let's say there's a boss that disables a couple of the attacks you would have, and some of the bosses have attacks that block some different ones. They could switch it up differently; this would require you to use different attacks. Some attacks could have longer times to charge it up, but deal lots of damage (getting hit during charge could stop attack), and some could be quick but low-damage attacks. The attacks could even be elemental in this aspect to make it much easier to tell which attacks could get disabled.

We can also implement interesting top-down battlefields for this, with walls in the middle as well. Work could be done on making different boss attacks, say, ricochet off of walls, cause icy slippery floors, and the like.

If we want the player to take a break… Should a pause button be added?

A pause button could be added, but then there would be users who used it to accurately predict ricochets and not get a general idea.

Also, we're thinking the exact same thing. I'm just thinking of adding on a planning esque phase and limiting the player's power to one ability in addition to what you're thinking.

I personally prefer a turn based system because, no matter how hard you try, you just cannot create a strategic real time fighting system with the same depth as a turn based one.

Hypnotron wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Yeah, I was thinking of making the attack picks random, but I was thinking the pick a skill each attack would be there to add more strategy in and make it so the player had more choices and options. I agree that all fights should be beatable in many ways, if you are good enough.

You're saying it should be realtime - well, the issue with that is that people will just get by all the bosses and harder fights by spamming E or whatever is their most damaging skill. They wouldn't even get scratched. Instead, you should have to pick ONE skill per attack - and certain attacks would need a certain skill to evade. This means players either have to choose - do they defend and play the waiting game, waiting for a good opening to strike, or do they attack and hope that they defeat their foe before their health is reduced to nothing.

Get where I'm coming from? If everyone has X attacks, people will just find whatever has the highest DPS when spammed and spam it, evading whatever they can in the process. Whereas if certain attacks NEED certain skills, and you only make them able to use one skill per attack, they must make that trade off - sacrifice a damage opportunity, or sacrifice hitpoints. In addition, the choice slowing the game down ACTUALLY HAS AN ADVANTAGE. It gives players an easy stopping point. Need to go grab dinner? Okay, play out the execution phase and don't make another selection. Hand getting tired? Take a break during a Selection Phase.

If bosses are going to be any sort of long fight, people will have hand cramps. Trust me, I know. Many RPGs I've played fall short in that aspect. The controls for efficient combat are awkward. Many turn-based RPGs are great in that aspect, because you just take a break on your turn. Basically, I think phase-oriented combat is better as it gives you A. easy breaks, and B. more strategy and thus more thought and immersion in the game.

You make a good argument. However, I still believe a real-time battle would work for immersion purposes, and it CAN still be strategic.

For example, let's say there's a boss that disables a couple of the attacks you would have, and some of the bosses have attacks that block some different ones. They could switch it up differently; this would require you to use different attacks. Some attacks could have longer times to charge it up, but deal lots of damage (getting hit during charge could stop attack), and some could be quick but low-damage attacks. The attacks could even be elemental in this aspect to make it much easier to tell which attacks could get disabled.

We can also implement interesting top-down battlefields for this, with walls in the middle as well. Work could be done on making different boss attacks, say, ricochet off of walls, cause icy slippery floors, and the like.

If we want the player to take a break… Should a pause button be added?

A pause button could be added, but then there would be users who used it to accurately predict ricochets and not get a general idea.

Also, we're thinking the exact same thing. I'm just thinking of adding on a planning esque phase and limiting the player's power to one ability in addition to what you're thinking.

I personally prefer a turn based system because, no matter how hard you try, you just cannot create a strategic real time fighting system with the same depth as a turn based one.

Yeah. And turn-based systems also allow time for dialogue without distracting you during your dodging.

Is there anyone keeping track of all the ideas that are being presented? It might be useful as a future reference.

I did a thing
if anyone wants to expand on it, go ahead

WolfCat67 wrote:

I have a feeling it would be much easier to use the engine we're currently using for the battle; but add in some attack patterns that actually require you to run away. We don't really need the “selection” options for the game, as that needlessly slows down battle, even for a slight bit. Instead, it should not be turn-based or have any selection process, just the player using strategy to find a way to beat the enemy using the attacks they currently have (they can gain more as it goes on with different abilities) and while avoiding the enemy's attacks. That way, battle can remain an engaging aspect of the game, and each one can be done differently. We also should have the attacks randomized, as to make sure that each battle doesn't feel the exact same.

Working on it

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

ok…

Exypno wrote:

Is there anyone keeping track of all the ideas that are being presented? It might be useful as a future reference.

We usually incorporate (or take note) of ideas as we go along.

Would you like me to attempt to make a hybrid battle engine of what you two are thinking of?

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

Exypno wrote:

Is there anyone keeping track of all the ideas that are being presented? It might be useful as a future reference.

We usually incorporate (or take note) of ideas as we go along.

Would you like me to attempt to make a hybrid battle engine of what you two are thinking of?

I guess. I mean, the phase-based approach provides convenient breaks and opportunities for dialogue and so on, so it can't be a bad thing to add.

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

I made some tweaks, sounds pretty nice PPP

heh, key changes, tempo tampering, and changed it to triples it's not half bad tho

braxbroscratcher wrote:

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

I made some tweaks, sounds pretty nice PPP

heh, key changes, tempo tampering, and changed it to triples it's not half bad tho

I like that! Nice job!

AStefex wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

I made some tweaks, sounds pretty nice PPP

heh, key changes, tempo tampering, and changed it to triples it's not half bad tho

I like that! Nice job!

I'm messing with beepbox now. Got a pretty catchy melody goin lol

braxbroscratcher wrote:

awsome_guy_360 wrote:

Exypno wrote:

Is there anyone keeping track of all the ideas that are being presented? It might be useful as a future reference.

We usually incorporate (or take note) of ideas as we go along.

Would you like me to attempt to make a hybrid battle engine of what you two are thinking of?

I guess. I mean, the phase-based approach provides convenient breaks and opportunities for dialogue and so on, so it can't be a bad thing to add.

I'm thinking of the engine we currently add, with quite some turned based modifications.

Something I slapped together in five seconds. Working on tying in a cave song leitmotif.

braxbroscratcher wrote:

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

I made some tweaks, sounds pretty nice PPP

heh, key changes, tempo tampering, and changed it to triples it's not half bad tho

it's a bit crowded

TheCoolCreeper wrote:

braxbroscratcher wrote:

AStefex wrote:

This can replace Melody 2 on the music sheet for me.

I made some tweaks, sounds pretty nice PPP

heh, key changes, tempo tampering, and changed it to triples it's not half bad tho

it's a bit crowded

the original was too

braxbroscratcher wrote:

Something I slapped together in five seconds. Working on tying in a cave song leitmotif.

I can work on music if needed. It just will take me a bit longer than others due to my schedule and my lack of skill.