I've edited the first message as a lot of what I've talked about is no longer relevant.
I think it's probably why Intelligent Systems went for something interactive in the first place.It gets harder when are looking at a single protagonist vs a party
I like the idea of having more than one arrow but I don't know how it would be implemented since it's essentially turn-based. Unless you mean that the player has two interactions: one on attack and one on defense, when it's the opponent's turn? If that's the case however, wouldn't one of the two arrows end up superfluous? Unless I misunderstood what you meant.What if you also had an arrow at the bottom that could be used for defense? Something like matching them up would be a dodge, close together would increase the chance of decreasing the damage of the enemy attack? You could also base the bottom arrow speed on speed discrepancy. For example if the enemy is fast the bottom arrow should move faster. It would add some challenge if the arrows move independently at different speeds to both try and match them AND hit the space you want.
I'd like to find ways to influence the state of the "hit bar" yes. For instance I was thinking of things like what you've mentioned here, like having certain enemies have areas where they'll counter attack if you interact there.You could also have buffs and ailments that grow or shrink specific sections to make them easier/harder to hit, or use character traits. For example if the enemy has a shield and armor make the hit and critical hit spaces smaller. If the enemy is just in a loin cloth make the critical hit area larger.
If this is the case, I would recommend trying to stay away from straight RPG mechanics and move gameplay more towards action. Single-character-party turn-based combat is extremely difficult to make entertaining for the length of time an RPG lasts. A game with a single controllable character is only as good as its core mechanics. Games with one PC and more standard battle systems like Deep Dungeon and Dragon Quest 1 work so well precisely because they distilled the genre into its most basic form. Undertale replaces RPG mechanics with bullet hell dodging. Paper Mario (OK, you have a partner. Technically 1.5 playable characters) and its action commands work because they're different for nearly every single action. Action RPGs live and die based on how good moving around and attacking feels. If your primary method of interacting with the combat system is through a single meter, it will likely become boring very fast.I want to have a single protagonist for my game as opposed to a party of characters. I think it would be boring to stick to the basic rpg commands for this reason.
Other: Her Loving Embrace uses platforming hack-n-slash for both basic attacks and dodging, and other styles of minigames for special attacks. It could be worth looking into for inspiration.I'd like something highly interactive like Undertale but with something which I find more interesting than bullet hell.
You could have pages of a book instead (perhaps one that can rewrite reality itself), and since the book has its own will it will rearrange its pages randomly each time you open it, so you can't decide WHICH pages to read, other than the random ones available to you. Functionally the same as randomly drawn cards, but could fit into basically any story. (And since the book is alive, it could be a support character that offers flavor text, random amusing banter when there's nothing happening story-wise, and tutorials when new game mechanics are introduced)I think that's a good comprise between NRG and strategy. The reason why I'm hesitating is because the game itself has nothing to do with cards. I mean, it's a not a game about collecting cards or something like that. The cards would only show up as the combat system, it would have nothing with the game narrative itself.
It's functionally exactly the same as playing cards, they're just presented as pages of a book visually. (Flipping through pages instead of shuffling a deck, looking like pieces of parchment instead of trading cards, having a lot more text on them...)Ok but how would you apply this in a battle for example? Just so I'm sure I understand what you're saying.
I want every battle to be some sort of set piece. Battles should happen fairly rarely but should a challenging affair. No flash mobs.If there are a lot of turn based battles, sometimes you don't need each and every battle to be compelling, just quick. Bosses can be compelling.
I wasn't planning on keeping them but I might. Every time I change something in the game, there are repercussions. Some of them I'm aware of, others, not so much until it hits me in the face. That is to say, with the new system enemies are all the same. There's no difference between a tough enemy and an easy one, which is in itself a new shortcoming with the current system.1) Are you planning on keeping the "special" dice rolls from your earlier posts? I think the chains could be adapted as a special attack used by certain enemies to block the player from rerolling a die at random. Or possibly in certain boss battles, one die could be locked per turn, forcing the player to not only win, but win quickly.
I was thinking about this over breakfast actually. I'm thinking yes. I'm thinking of giving an energy meter to the enemy as well. Stronger enemies having higher energy. The problem is that the enemy goes first, meaning having a meter for the enemy would be hard to implement as I'd need to determine when the A.I. will attempt a re-roll or not. This could play into the enemy difficulty as well.2) Speaking of enemies, are there plans for certain enemies/circumstances to allow enemies to re-roll?
Another coincidence, I was dropping by to talk about this. If you look at the screen below:3) Any thoughts on attacks doing more damage depending on the difference between rolls, i.e. a player that rolls a three of a kind takes one damage from an enemy rolling a full house, but takes three damage from an enemy rolling a four of a kind?
That's a really good idea. I like it! Maybe I could have some randomized result counting as a critical hit. This would force the player to risk more than just beating the enemy score.4) How about having bonuses (I'm thinking free re-rolls on subsequent turns, health boosts, etc.) attached to certain rolls randomly appear at the start of a round? For example, rolling two pairs would generally be a bad thing, but on this turn it completely restores your health. Symbols for the various bonuses (or penalties, like the chain thing) could appear on the right-hand side of the score sheet.
Think nothing of it. The more feedback I give other people, the more I can fool myself into thinking I know what I'm doing.any sort of feedback really does help. So you can go to bed tonight knowing you've done a good deed!
Definitely know that one. Someone casually goes, "Hey, why don't you do this?" and you either have to spend the next day and a half getting their (admittedly good) idea to work with everything you already have in place or feel guilty for ignoring their (terrible but well meaning) ideas entirely. That being said...Every time I change something in the game, there are repercussions. Some of them I'm aware of, others, not so much until it hits me in the face.