Omnimaga
Calculator Community => Other Calc-Related Projects and Ideas => Topic started by: pimathbrainiac on December 05, 2012, 08:05:45 pm
-
Discuss the Battle Engine
-
Add a poll for whether it should be ARPG or turn based
-
on-map like the zelda games would be cool, those are also in general the battle engins i like most :P
-
I have no idea how to add a poll so it goes with the topic the poll's about and not a separate topic.
-
I was thinking perhaps a turn based system similar to Chrono Cross. Attacks have points and you spend points to attack.
Or, a real time one where you accumulate a certain rate of points and you spend them as you see fit for attacks (some attacks take a large amount of points, others take little, etc)
-
Turn-based.
You have mental sanity, which is like health. Lose all of it and you go insane and die.
Secondary statistics are also shared:
Ponies: for Omnimagans
Programming Stamina: programmers
Despicability: teachers and TI people
Processing Power: drones
You can program, post, Omnom, lobster, or use an item.
Programming takes anywhere from 2 to 50 time units and requires a calculator and programming skill. It is capable of dealing direct damage to the enemy, as well as possibly invoking side effects. You gain 1 to 10 ponies in the process, but lose programming stamina.
Posting has 2 possibilities: trolling/flaming (1 tu, 1 pony) deals a small amount of damage but possibly makes the enemy backlash, and regular posting (2 tu, 3 ponies) deals more damage.
Omnoming costs 1 tu and 4 ponies, and gives AoE effects.
Items vary. They can deal damage, heal, or other stuff, and take 1 tu and no ponies. Proposed items:
Jar 'o Ponies: Gives you or an Omnimagan 20 ponies.
Big Jar 'o Ponies: Gives 80 ponies.
Elixir of Sanity: Gives 100 mental sanity.
Great Elixir of Sanity: Gives 200 mental sanity.
Milk: Cures chronic insanity (by-turn loss of mental sanity).
Nerve Poison: -20 MS; Chron. Ins. 2 per turn.
Lethal NP: -200 MS; Chron. Ins. 25 per turn.
Spilled Coffee: -10 PP for drones.
Coffee: +10 PS for programmers.
Nyan Cat: +25 secondary statistics to allies.
Rickroll: -10 MS to all enemies.
Anti-Pony Law: Takes away all ponies on board and the ability to gain ponies for 3 turns.
Canned Program: Same effect as one programming technique.
MLPFIM: +20 Ponies to all Omnimagans
Calculator Manual: +2 Programming Skill in Basic for particular calc for remainder of battle
-
Poll added. For the record there's the "add poll" button at the bottom of the page ;)
Personally I prefer ARPGs when I do play rpgs. Also I'm guessing the programmer wouldn't have to concern as much about stat balancing :P just hit the button fast
-
We should have the battle system classed based like in FFV, except only the player can change classes. Allies remain a single class (but are typically very powerful in them)
-
If there's gonna be more than 3 members in party, I have a perfect idea for one. You can pm me if that's the case because it's gonna be long XD
-
What is turn-based?
-
What is turn-based?
Like Pokemon
-
It's when you and others take turns playing moves.
-
If we do party members and turn based, we could make your team mates members of the Omni community who help you :D
(and each will have a special attack pertaining to them) :P
-
@blue_bear_94 I sent a pm to you ^_^
-
I like ARPG because I don't have to share my calc. :P No one touches my calc but me(and maybe my parents).
-
I like ARPG because I don't have to share my calc. :P No one touches my calc but me(and maybe my parents).
It would be single player anyways though, right? You wouldn't have to share regardless :P
-
It should be like Chrono Trigger's battle system: The on-map style, but turn-based with all sorts of cool move effects and stuff! Also, directional attacks that hit multiple enemies, etc.
It also allows for multiple party members where classic ARPG really doesn't.
-
but i thought the game was only going to be single player?
-
Turn-based.
You have mental sanity, which is like health. Lose all of it and you go insane and die.
Secondary statistics are also shared:
Ponies: for Omnimagans
Programming Stamina: programmers
Despicability: teachers and TI people
Processing Power: drones
You can program, post, Omnom, lobster, or use an item.
Programming takes anywhere from 2 to 50 time units and requires a calculator and programming skill. It is capable of dealing direct damage to the enemy, as well as possibly invoking side effects. You gain 1 to 10 ponies in the process, but lose programming stamina.
Posting has 2 possibilities: trolling/flaming (1 tu, 1 pony) deals a small amount of damage but possibly makes the enemy backlash, and regular posting (2 tu, 3 ponies) deals more damage.
Omnoming costs 1 tu and 4 ponies, and gives AoE effects.
Items vary. They can deal damage, heal, or other stuff, and take 1 tu and no ponies. Proposed items:
Jar 'o Ponies: Gives you or an Omnimagan 20 ponies.
Big Jar 'o Ponies: Gives 80 ponies.
Elixir of Sanity: Gives 100 mental sanity.
Great Elixir of Sanity: Gives 200 mental sanity.
Milk: Cures chronic insanity (by-turn loss of mental sanity).
Nerve Poison: -20 MS; Chron. Ins. 2 per turn.
Lethal NP: -200 MS; Chron. Ins. 25 per turn.
Spilled Coffee: -10 PP for drones.
Coffee: +10 PS for programmers.
Nyan Cat: +25 secondary statistics to allies.
Rickroll: -10 MS to all enemies.
Anti-Pony Law: Takes away all ponies on board and the ability to gain ponies for 3 turns.
Canned Program: Same effect as one programming technique.
MLPFIM: +20 Ponies to all Omnimagans
Calculator Manual: +2 Programming Skill in Basic for particular calc for remainder of battle
^Way too much randomness going on there for my taste. I'd rather not make 4chan the RPG. Perhaps based in modern times with psychic abilities and physical abilities, somewhat like Earthbound?
Also, this list is too specific at the moment. We should focus on how the battle engine is going to be layed out first on a very basic level. (turn based, action based, hybrid) We also need to decide what kind of stats characters will have, (HP, MP, Str, etc) What ranges they will fall within from level to level, what character levels will be capped at, if we will even have a level system, etc. etc. etc. Basically tons of planning needs to be done first.
It should be like Chrono Trigger's battle system: The on-map style, but turn-based with all sorts of cool move effects and stuff! Also, directional attacks that hit multiple enemies, etc.
It also allows for multiple party members where classic ARPG really doesn't.
This would be ok with me. If we try to make the battle engine overly complex it's going to be a major pita to code. Lets try to keep it somewhat simplistic and not overcomplicate it.
-
Sorunome, multiple party members does not mean multiplayer. All it does is give you a lot more combat options, since you control multiple people. It's like playing a tactics game, but with fewer units.
-
So, I played a Mario RPG for the GBA once, and you would be attacked on the map itself, then you would enter a turn based mode. I kind of like that idea. (This seems to be the same idea you were talking about, willrandship).
-
Just like Paper Mario?
-
Just like Paper Mario?
No, not really- what xeda is suggesting, if I've got this right, is that the battle takes place on the map itself, not switching to the paper mario-style battles.
-
I think what xeda is saying is that there are enemy sprites in the overworld and touching them triggers a battle.
-
I think this is what xeda meant:
Skip to 4:10 for one of the battles.
-
Yes, that is what I am talking about :D (To both Yeong and ben_g)
-
Imagine we could play such a game on calc :o i vote for that engine!!
-
Cool, I hope I have time. I am already planning stuff out in my head.
-
Imagine we could play such a game on calc :o i vote for that engine!!
It looks 3D-ish, but it's actually just a tilemap in which the tiles are drawn from a birdview persfective instaed of top-down. The only thing that's handled differentely then on normal tilemaps is the collision. This makes that kind of games perfectely doable on calculators.
-
It doesn't even has to be the same view be the concept is very very cool
-
It looks 3D-ish, but it's actually just a tilemap in which the tiles are drawn from a birdview persfective instaed of top-down. The only thing that's handled differentely then on normal tilemaps is the collision. This makes that kind of games perfectely doable on calculators.
And I know how to handle the collision detection for the map! If I have time this weekend, I will try to make a scrolling map with a random AI thing that tries to chase you as a proof-of-concept.
-
Would be very cool, so excitted to see it ;p
-
I personally like Yeong's idea he has going (It's unique)
I also think elements from Chrono Cross's battle system could work well. For those of you who've never seen it (most likely everyone) here's a vid:
Basically, all party members start off with 7 points. You have three melee attack options that cost 1, 2 or 3 points. more points, more power, less accuracy. If your attack lands, all other party members replenish that number of points up to 7. You also unlock that number of spell levels. To use a spell costs 7 points. If all your party members points get to 0 or below, the enemy automatically takes a turn and all points go back to 7.
(There's a little more detail than that with the point system, but those are the basics)
-
Well, the trouble is that I have finals next week, and I go away to visit family from the 20th to the 30th. My inlaws live in a place that doesn't have internet and may or may not use electricity, my family lives where internet basically doesn't exist. This means I will need to wrap up my Apocalypse contest entry early, so I will have finals and the contest that I will be concentrating on for the near future.
However, I have difficulty concentrating on what i am supposed to do, so maybe I will accidentally write an engine XD
-
I think the poll should be closed (obvious which one wins) and there should be addee another poll to choose between those 2systems, they're both amazing
-
Well, that's not quite what I meant.....
I don't really mind if you don't want to do it like this, but I was referring to Chrono Trigger's style, where you contact an enemy, and you enter battle mode, but no transitions occur. The battle happens on the same map, and nearby enemies also enter the battle. It also allows for different results based upon position, like an enemy only counterattacking if it's close enough.
Check out this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pDBRiGZ7wrs#t=342s) I think it's a really cool feature.
Oh, and while we're talking about code-related things: Who wants access to the github repo?
-
Check out this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pDBRiGZ7wrs#t=342s) I think it's a really cool feature.
You're giving me nostalgia attacks! xD
-
But it was the coolest battlesystem ever. Only thing I would change is adding the ability to move your people around, for more tactics.
Also: Current Wiki Here. (http://epic7.cz.cc/omnirpg) Please put that in first post, pimath.
-
But it was the coolest battlesystem ever. Only thing I would change is adding the ability to move your people around, for more tactics.
Yeong also has an excellent idea in mind as well.
/me Pokes Yeong
Post it already :P
-
Oh ok. :P
This is how it works. (Let's base it on 12 members in party)
In battle, you can group members to up to 3 "cycles". So you can have 4/4/4 or 2/6/4 or 9/3 etc.
In each turn, 1 member from each cycle (could be called leader) can perform action or switch to other member in the same cycle.
Some of the spells can affect the entire cycle, all "leaders" of cycle, individual, etc. All physical attacks will attack the "leader" of the cycle.
Since it's called a "cycle," the order of members in cycle is important.
Let's say you have a cycle with guy A→B→C→D.
As A, you can't just switch to C, but rather take a turn to change to B and then C. You can only switch once per turn per cycle, requiring total of two turns to switch from A to C.
Also, in addition to this, each member could have a special attribute that enhance the cycle leaders a bit when they're in the leader position. Let's say that the leader s of cycles are A, E, and G. A's special attribute is MP+10 and E's special attribute is STR+2 and G's special attribute is INT+3. All the cycle leaders (and only the cycle leaders) will share these attributes.
EDIT: Oh. I forgot about the EXP sharing. The less cycle the battle was fought with, the more EXP will party receive. The members who weren't partcipating in the cycles won't get EXP. The current cycle leaders will receive 1.2x EXP while the other members in cycle receives a normal amount of EXP.
-
Since we could potentially have a large amount of party members (everyone will want a part, right?) This could be a useful system for managing them all. :D
-
Well, not everyone has to be a party member. After all, we need villains, mentors, etc. 12 members is fine, but don't be afraid to reduce it. You don't need the numbers to line up perfectly if you allow swapping individual people.
-
at the current point it seems that we'll have yeong in for sure
-
Oh ok. :P
This is how it works. (Let's base it on 12 members in party)
In battle, you can group members to up to 3 "cycles". So you can have 4/4/4 or 2/6/4 or 9/3 etc.
In each turn, 1 member from each cycle (could be called leader) can perform action or switch to other member in the same cycle.
Some of the spells can affect the entire cycle, all "leaders" of cycle, individual, etc. All physical attacks will attack the "leader" of the cycle.
Since it's called a "cycle," the order of members in cycle is important.
Let's say you have a cycle with guy A→B→C→D.
As A, you can't just switch to C, but rather take a turn to change to B and then C. You can only switch once per turn per cycle, requiring total of two turns to switch from A to C.
Also, in addition to this, each member could have a special attribute that enhance the cycle leaders a bit when they're in the leader position. Let's say that the leader s of cycles are A, E, and G. A's special attribute is MP+10 and E's special attribute is STR+2 and G's special attribute is INT+3. All the cycle leaders (and only the cycle leaders) will share these attributes.
EDIT: Oh. I forgot about the EXP sharing. The less cycle the battle was fought with, the more EXP will party receive. The members who weren't partcipating in the cycles won't get EXP. The current cycle leaders will receive 1.2x EXP while the other members in cycle receives a normal amount of EXP.
This suggested system seems to be too harsh on penalizing the player when they switch charcters. If you want to move from player a to player d within a cycle it takes 3 turns of you doing nothing to be able to do so leaving that slot open to be attacked. Also, having 12 active characters per battle seems like a bit overkill imo. I'd personally opt for a more simplistic battle system.
On a somewhat unrelated note, if an action rpg is chosen I'm unsure how well a multiparty system would work out unless you want to have a main character (Controlled by the player) and the secondary characters auto controlled by AI in battle (some what like kingdom hearts).
-
In most RPGs they don't allow player switching at all, but FF10 has an interesting method: Since it uses the Timer Bar (albeit not in "active" mode) they simply have it so that swapping party members adds about 1/4 of the bar's length to that person's time. Not a very big penalty, but enough to make you not want to do it too often. The Timer Bar system is also something I recommend in general, since it makes slow characters vs fast characters far more realistic.
-
Well, Yeong's suggestion kind of reminds me of Pokemon where you can have 2 on 2 battles. You still have a full party of 6, but the downside of switching is that the character that was switched doesn't get to attack and the incoming Pokemon is open to take a hit. This can however also be strategic depending on what you switch to.
-
I understand that, but is pokemon really the style we're after? Pokemon was designed with the idea that you would have hundreds of characters to train. We're only going to have 12, max.
-
Oh no i didn't mean that at all. I think 12 is a bit much tbh. That was just the only example that came to mind with switching between active characters. As you pointed out, most rpgs don't do this.
-
12 is quite a few, but not too many if the story accounts for it well (ie separate parties following different plots, like FF6)
-
Yea I agree, I think 12 in a party at once would be a bit cumbersome though.
-
Not to mention that it will take a lot of data. We'll probably need around 100 bytes for each party member, and that times 12 is 1200!
-
1200 bytes isn't that big if you only have 300 bytes of it out of the appvar at a time.
-
How will character data take 100 bytes O.O The maximum data it will take is probably around 30~40 bytes each. Also, if switching from A→D takes too long, maybe ability switching the other way can fix it? so that from A, you can switch to either B or D.
-
I'm thinking that if the character data includes a 16x16 sprite, it would take at least 32 from that alone, plus the name, then the stats, equipment, and abilities.
-
ah. including a sprite data. The pure data without sprite will barely reach 50 bytes though.
-
How will character data take 100 bytes O.O The maximum data it will take is probably around 30~40 bytes each. Also, if switching from A→D takes too long, maybe ability switching the other way can fix it? so that from A, you can switch to either B or D.
I also want to point out (as I did in my previous post) that most people seem to be favoring an action rpg as opposed to a turn based one. Other concerns aside; how would this system work out in an ARPG?
I also can't stress enough how important I think it is to have a combat system that is more simplistic and easy to use, and honestly an action RPG would be well suited to simplicity.
I guess the biggest question we really need to answer right now is turn based or action rpg. Then if we do an action RPG, do we implement a multiparty system, and what is the best way to go about that?
-
For ARPG, which hugely favors one party member RPG game, I can only think of few ways of implying multiparty system:
1) Press button to change to different party member (prolly 4 max)
2) Party members move based on an AI, and only the "selected" party members can be moved manually
3) LoZ: four swords
-
Isn't party members also a bit of a story-line thing? Our currently storyline has only one party member....
-
Our current story would allow for an ambiguous number of party members. Party members and allies help with the depth of the story, so it should be important that we have them in some form.
-
For ARPG, which hugely favors one party member RPG game, I can only think of few ways of implying multiparty system:
1) Press button to change to different party member (prolly 4 max)
2) Party members move based on an AI, and only the "selected" party members can be moved manually
3) LoZ: four swords
A combination of 1 and 2 was what I was thinking if that were the route we were to take (action rpg+ multiparty)
Our current story would allow for an ambiguous number of party members. Party members and allies help with the depth of the story, so it should be important that we have them in some form.
This could still work within the confines of an action RPG. In addition to your main character, party members that join and leave the party throughout the course of the game could follow AI patterns. I would probably have a max party size of 2 or 3 at any given time in order to keep things simple and not slow things down too much in this case though.
*Edit* Actually you could have an action rpg where you have mutiple scenarios occurring and you switch between control of the main characters as the plot progresses. When the characters paths meet, one (or more) of them could become AI controlled members of a single party. If they diverge, you could split them again and switch between scenarios as needed. This would be another way you could implement a multiparty ARPG.
-
Yeah, the appeal of turn based, is that it's less demanding processing wise.
Arpg, we'd need to have ai running as everything else is running as well. We might not be able to have a complex ai either if it's too demanding.
-
Make it turn based! It's alot easier to program!
-
Yeah, the appeal of turn based, is that it's less demanding processing wise.
Arpg, we'd need to have ai running as everything else is running as well. We might not be able to have a complex ai either if it's too demanding.
Make it turn based! It's alot easier to program!
That.
ARPG might be more appealing to play/look than TRPG, but in fact, TRPG is less resource-demanding and actually can focus more on visual effects than coding stuffs.
-
With TRPG, you can also get away with slower routines, since it's not always being animated. It can take some time with the ai and other aspects and still look good. (*thinks of FFV where this was the case and it was still a great battle engine) :D
-
Either is fine with me honestly, but turn based will be easier with managing party members. No need to worry about A.I or slow down. I still think I'd limit parties to 3(ideally) or 4 members active in battle at once. Our screen space is a bit limited. ;) If there are more party members they can be switched between battles in some fashion (think Final fantasy IV, VI, Chrono Trigger, or Mario RPG). Either that or the story can be written around a rotating party in which members come, leave or split(like Final Fantasy VI) at various points during the story. A rotating party *could* still have support for additional party members that are sidelined though, like the RPGs previously mentioned in this post.
-
The limiting space was what I had in mind while thinking of my battle system so that no more than 3 members can stay in a single screen. This battle engine is what I ultimately came up with back in the day when I was working on yeong rpg, which planned to have 14-15 members.
-
Speaking of graphics, I've just done a few programs (2 in fact :P ) which can *I think* fit as brutal laser attacks animations.
(http://mattias.refeyton.fr/espace-ti/lasertest.gif)
Same inverted :
(http://mattias.refeyton.fr/espace-ti/lasertest2.gif)
-
maybe this can be implemented somehow? :3
(http://www.omnimaga.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12137.0;attach=11657;image)
-
Yeah, as a magic attack or something :D (now we're in pure TRPG). I see some kind of "Curse"-like attack :P
-
to arpg vs turnbased: look at the poll, mroe people voted for ARPG :P
-
Yeah, but as far as I read the topic an ARPG would be harder to realize than a TRPG, so in case of a TRPG I make attacks animations :P and in an ARPG I don't think I'll can do anything.
EDIT : or maybe cinematics :P
-
but the difference is only 2 votes, so ARPG is not quite confirmed :P
-
but it has been like that since 2 days :P
-
What about a compromise?
We could handle weak enemies that occur all over the map like in an action RPG, so you can defeat those with pressing the attack and defend buttons a few times, and for very strong enemies, bosses and maybe some quest-related fights, we can use a special tactical battle engine. Doing this will also make the gameplay more varied, which is often a good thing.
It does give more work to code, but a lot of hands can do a lot of work ;).
-
That seems like a good idea to me.
The poll is pretty much tied; its 9-10, so a compressed would be nice
-
Yeah ok i think that's a fair compromise...
And the player will be happy as well i think :p
-
What about a compromise?
We could handle weak enemies that occur all over the map like in an action RPG, so you can defeat those with pressing the attack and defend buttons a few times, and for very strong enemies, bosses and maybe some quest-related fights, we can use a special tactical battle engine. Doing this will also make the gameplay more varied, which is often a good thing.
It does give more work to code, but a lot of hands can do a lot of work ;).
I think that would make the system very awkward, unnecessarily bloated, and hard to handle from a programming standpoint. Since both ideas are almost equally popular we just need to choose one and stick with it.
-
What about a compromise?
We could handle weak enemies that occur all over the map like in an action RPG, so you can defeat those with pressing the attack and defend buttons a few times, and for very strong enemies, bosses and maybe some quest-related fights, we can use a special tactical battle engine. Doing this will also make the gameplay more varied, which is often a good thing.
It does give more work to code, but a lot of hands can do a lot of work ;).
I think that would make the system very awkward, unnecessarily bloated, and hard to handle from a programming standpoint. Since both ideas are almost equally popular we just need to choose one and stick with it.
arpg still has more votes :P
and that idea isn't too bad, that for heavier battles it is a bit more turn-based, and then stuff like other enemies or houses or map scrolling are not available but it is still more arpg like (i hope you get what i mean)
-
No, I'm not really sure what you are suggesting Sorunome. Could you try to elaborate? It seems that we are going to have a muliparty system regardles of wether we do an arpg or an turn based system. The reason i say i cant see both working is that we would need to create two entirely different battle systems to handle multiple party members. Not only that, but most likely they'd need seperate interfaces to handle commands and item usage( an arpg is minimalistic and turn based rpgs tend to be menu driven). I really dont see the justification of doing such a thing. Then u also have the issue with how attacks are handled collison based (arpg) vs accuracy and evasion tables (turn based) Also, design wise equipment hp levels, and items tend to be way different in the two systems. In zelda for exaample you have maybe 20 hp (80 if you count taking 1/4 damage), where as in something like final fantasy characters can easily have over 9000 hp.
Also, although arpg is ahead in the pole turn based isnt far behind (i said they were close too equal). At some point the design team has to decide which is the best implmentation for the game. In this case, the poll should be used to see how people feel. Not the be all end all answer in my oppinon. We who are actually developing it seem to favor turn based as the best solution, and the important thing is that a good solid game is produced in the end. Not something that is cumbersome and pleases no one.
-
well, what i mean is normal enemies arpg-like and then like bosses or some other enemies, if you fight against them, it goes into a new engine which is more optimized for fighting and has less other features, like it doesn't have a scrolling map or other events anymore, maybe that can give us enough speed then, or it could be like in knights of the old republic, it is turn-based but the enemies are on the map and you fight them on the map.
-
Hey, it's like Pokemon Team Rescue (or whatever you call it in English :P in French that's Pokemon Equipe de Secours). You move on a smooth-scrolled map a tile at a time, and enemies goes at the same speed as you. So when you're in front of an enemy, you can only beat him in a TRPG battle, but on-map. I kinda like that idea :D
EDIT : I remember, that's Pokemon Mystery Dungeon.
-
*late idea*
I like the battle engine of Pokemon Mystery Dungeon a lot actually.
edit: f*ck, I did not read the above posts but I posted from the first page. Kinda coincidental that PMD was just being talked about.
-
lol xD
i kinda like this idea:
(skip to 4:00 )
EDIT: so you have a limited amount of energy, and you can do with the energy: use items, move player , attack
So the move can only go in specified direction for every player
attacks as well...
You're not just 1 player but you're 4 players on the field at the same time
-
That's pretty cool acually.
-
I think we have to start to seriousley settle down on one battle engine so that coding can start.
-
Yeah that's what i think as well
I think we have around 5 reasonable ideas??
-
turnbased
that one up there
knights of the old republic style (turnbased-arpg mix)
full arpg
...
-
If we go turn-based it should have a time bar, or the equivalent in its code (ie FF10) so that speed gets properly balanced. It doesn't have to be a real-time animated bar, but it would be cool if it was.
I agree with the idea that we need one consistent system. ARPG doesn't make sense if the coolest battles (the boss fights) are just turn based. ARPG bosses are only a little more complex than regular enemies (bigger script, bigger sprite, event tied to death)
-
as said, I like the mystery dungeon battle system a lot. It's kinda full of action, can use long range attacks, but you also have enough time for thinking up a strategy.
-
I haven't played Pokemon mystery dungeon, but I checked it out on Youtube. The battle system it uses looks pretty good. I defintely think we could use something similar. I may have to find a copy and check out the battle system further. :)
-
I haven't played Pokemon mystery dungeon, but I checked it out on Youtube. The battle system it uses looks pretty good. I defintely think we could use something similar. I may have to find a copy and check out the battle system further. :)
Yes, "research" might be something I need to partake in as well >.> I like the idea of having a turn-based system because, as has been mentioned, it allows for really cool graphics in battle.
-
I prefer turn-based too, it allows for more complex/interesting strategies and mechanics imo. Plus the above ^.^
-
Hmmm maybe i should change my vote from arpg to turn based, then turn based has 1 vote more then arpg
-
I realised I never voted, now it is tied >.>
-
Now turn-based has 2 votes more then arpg , so i think the possibilities and avaiable speed allows us to make a good turn based, but we already came across 4 turn-based things that all looked cool
So now we should decide which one to implement
-
We should just get the heads of story/coding to discuss and decide which would work best for the game.
-
Silly question - if the battle engine is turn based, will enemy be on left or right? (up/down/etc)
-
enemy: right upper
player: left lower
-
Actually, it doesn't have to be only left/right. There are many different ways turn based could be done.
*edit* More thoughts
I haven't played Pokemon mystery dungeon, but I checked it out on Youtube. The battle system it uses looks pretty good. I defintely think we could use something similar. I may have to find a copy and check out the battle system further. :)
Hmm... On the other hand, Something more Final Fantasy IV/Chrono Trigger like or Earthbound like Might allow for larger and more Epic looking sprites (especially bosses). Hmm...
-
lol xD
i kinda like this idea:
(skip to 4:00 )
EDIT: so you have a limited amount of energy, and you can do with the energy: use items, move player , attack
So the move can only go in specified direction for every player
attacks as well...
You're not just 1 player but you're 4 players on the field at the same time
I still think this is pretty awesome xD
-
I think that a regular Pokemon-like turn-based is the best
Reasons:
1) Easier to code
2) You can make BOSS sprites, as well as 8x8 overworld NPC's
3) It's a familiar engine... People can get used to new gameplay elements in the engine, while not being overwhelmed by the basic battle engine scheme
-
this is the idea i like xD (less complex ofcourse)
http://spele.nl/tactics-100-spel/
-
A tactical RPG? I think I'd like to avoid that for this game. Even more simplistic battles tend to take a while in tactical RPGs. I can personally attest to this having spent countless hours on Final Fantasy Tactics Advance.
-
A tactical RPG? I think I'd like to avoid that for this game. Even more simplistic battles tend to take a while in tactical RPGs. I can personally attest to this having spent countless hours on Final Fantasy Tactics Advance.
I agree. FFTA like games can take FOREVER to grind. Also, tactical RPGs are more for Stage-like structure, not for overworld structure.
-
Indeed. Although, one very interesting structure for battle systems I saw was Radiant Historia. Your positions were fixed, but you could use certain moves to shift enemies around in a 3x3 grid. Enemies overlaid on each other both took damage from the same attack, so it was very smart to use. Imagine using 3 MP to start dealing double damage. Enemies moved back after you were done attacking. (The turn order was really funky. You could swap things around and stuff)
-
We need to keep OmniRPG going guys! Don't want it to go dead, do we?
-
Of course not, but for my part I've got quite some other projects, so it's hard to work on everything :/
-
OMNIMRPGFTW!!!!!!
I'm writing a tribute to Illusiat. :)
-
I'm useless on coding, since it's Axe/Z80. We have a storyline worked out, we now need code and sprites really.