|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 12, 2018 2:08:00 GMT
List of goals for the topic:- How Many weapon types will we use? What are those weapon types?
- TLA had 6, DD had 9. Do we keep one of those values, or do we add on some logical weapon types?
- How do we sort these weapon types internally? Do we use various categories, or is it a looser approach?
- What kinds of weapons fit into each category - are they general categories, or more specific ones?
- How will we distribute weapon types across the party?
- Do we still have 4 weapons for warriors, 3 for casters, or do we change that?
- What's the process we should use to determine what categories of weapons someone can or cannot use?
- Who should have what weapon type, and why?
- How do the weapons differ from one another?
- Is there a statistical difference between each weapon type?
- Is there a difference in unleash trends between each weapon type?
- Does equipping a weapon type affect psynergy in some way? If so, how does each weapon type affect psynergy?
- How do we approach Artifact weapons?
- How do we balance the bonuses artifacts weapons get with one another?
- How do we factor in cursed equipment into the mix?
- Do have have a method of determining distribution patterns in mind for various abilities/effects artifact weapons possess?
We are currently discussing: Goal 1
Okay, so we've pretty much mostly agreed on doing a Physical/Magical split between the party. Next step in that discussion is how to handle equipment. Golden Sun itself has the following equipment types: Axe (associated with Physical) Sword (associated with Physical) Blade (associated as Mixed) Mace (associated as Mixed) Staff (associated with Magical) Ankh (associated with Magical) Dark Dawn added: Bows (associated with Magical) Knuckles (Sveta only) Claws (Sveta only) The GBA games also have Physical Fighters having 4 weapons, while Magical Casters have 3 weapons. Dark Dawn doesn't care about patterns and is a mess of design in this department. Furthermore, there are three broad equipment categories: Heavy (Armors, Helms, Shields) Light (Garbs, Hats, Gloves) Mystic (Robes, Circlets, Armlets) Physical Fighters can equip Heavy and Light Magical Casters can equip Mystic and Light And Sveta gets gimped with only Light. In this topic, we're going to be proposing and discussing how to handle these in our game.
I personally think we should do a small amount of expansion. Instead of 2 of each type (plus a few arbitrary extras), we have four of each type.
| Offensive | Defensive | Control | Balanced | Physical | Axes | Spears | Hammers | Swords | Mixed | Bows | Maces | Blades | Martial | Magical | Staves | Symbols | Scythe | Daggers |
This is just one possible layout, and it's mostly a thematic categorization (unless we want to have some manner of mechanical representation, but we can discuss that later). I can see us doing either 4 weapons per adept, or copying the GS 4P3M model. When it comes to weapon selection, I like either of the the following ideas: Idea 1: They have to have at least one proficiency from their category (physical or magical). The remaining can come from either their category and mixed. Idea 2: They have to have at least one proficiency from their category (physical or magical). They can have a single type from any category. The remaining have to come from either their category or mixed. For armors, I think it's best to keep what GS does.
|
|
|
Post by zeldafan30 on Nov 12, 2018 3:27:57 GMT
While I do think we should have more weapons, because that could make things very interesting and very cool, I have a proposal:
Now, I haven't played Dark Dawn, so if this is what was changed in terms of weapons then forget about everything I'm about to say lol.
So, I think instead of weapons being... "class" specific, and by class I mean warrior-type, mage-type, etc. (For example, Isaac being able to wield swords, light blades, axes and maces while Mia can only wield staves and maces), we should have weapons be Character specific.
For example, Talia, our mercury adept, would be considered a mage-type character (or at least, I would think so). Because of this she'd definitely wield staves, but I think she should also wield spears, which would be a weapon that mage type units couldn't access.
then let's take our Venus adept, who we also agreed would be a mage-type. Instead of wielding staves and spears like Talia, he would wield daggers and bows.
Jupiterboy would wield swords and axes, marswoman would use hammers, maces, and scythes, etc.
The point I am trying to make is: I don't think we should approach the weapons system like GS 1 and TLA did. The weapons our characters can use shouldn't be limited to what archetype they are, but should be on a character-by-character basis.
As for armor, yeah it should be the same as GS. It'd be weird to see Talia wear a full suit of armor lol.
|
|
|
Post by carthus on Nov 12, 2018 3:38:38 GMT
I don't feel strongly either way regarding weapon exclusivity, I agree with Zelda's opinion regarding letting the caster's of the game being able to have a little more free range regarding weapon selection. I do agree with the idea that armor should follow the same exclusivity that was already present in GS, it wouldn't make much sense having a caster run around in heavy armor, or letting our tanks wear robes.
|
|
|
Post by sylvanelite on Nov 12, 2018 7:31:48 GMT
I personally don't think we should have a lot of weapons.
Unleashes are particularly taxing to implement, and the way weapons work they only have limited use. For example, a 50 might weapon will never be used after getting a 100 might weapon.
Additionally, I don't think we should consider number of classes or characters as the defining factor. Instead it should be based on game length. For example, there's no point having 100 weapons if there's 4 dungeons. The vast majority of weapons will go unused.
I would say something like, if we have 4 characters, then 8 "super" weapons per 2 characters is more than enough for the whole game. With a number of filler "boring" weapons, we would have very good coverage for any game length. (With 4 characters, that's 16 super weapons in the whole game).
That might not sound like much, but if we want the weapons to have meaningful impact, they should stick on a party long enough to be seen, and not too long to become boring. Maybe post-game there should be a way of reinvigorating old weapons to get more use out of them, but that's a different issue.
To give some numbers, in the first post there's 11 categories. If we have 5 weapons per category, and churn out 1 unleash a week, it'll take over a year just to implement all the weapons. That's a lot of effort. I don't know if that's a realistic estimate, but to me I think we should put our focus elsewhere.
|
|
ndrs
Programmer
Posts: 39
|
Post by ndrs on Nov 12, 2018 15:45:27 GMT
By points: About the expansion: I'd do 3 by 3. Deleting "Control". 12 is too much for what possibly would be a small game. About the usage: I think that anyone could use anything, just have a character defined proficiency that applies a percentage to the weapon actual stats. So if a support character uses an axe it just could be applying -15% to the weapon stats, but let the player do it. About sylvanelite comment: We should keep unleashes only for a few, very special weapons, like GBA GS did. An unleash for every weapon is too much in my opinion. Also, it gives some excitement when in late game you find a weapon that... surprise! has an random special effect. About armor: Same as GS for me is fine.
|
|
|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 12, 2018 18:01:55 GMT
zeldafan30 I think you might be misunderstanding something. What I posted up top does not say that everyone can equip everything their "class" can access. Ivan and Mia showcase this: Ivan uses Blades, Staves, Ankhs Mia uses Maces, Staves, Ankhs The idea behind having 4 in each category is actually to cut down on overlap and have the characters be more unique from one another. For example, using method 2: Talia: Staff, Scythe, Bow Jupiter: Spear, Sword, Hammer, Mace Venus: Dagger, Martial, Bow Mars: Blade, Symbol, Axe, Sword Here, each character has a different feel to them. It follows the rules for creation, and we have a wide variety of equipment to pick from - but just because they're mages/warriors doesn't mean the feel completely the same. @ndrs: look at it as Attack, Defense, and Indirect then. One with the idea of doing more damage, one with the idea of taking less, and one with the idea of having effects land more often. sylvanelite: The point about unleashes applies to weapons in jRPGs in general. I'd be more concerned not with having issues with weapons being replaced by stronger variants as the game progresses, but rather how the weapon types stand apart from one another.
|
|
Galda
Localizer
I just..... like Cats. That's it
Posts: 25
|
Post by Galda on Nov 12, 2018 22:22:31 GMT
Quoting ndr here but I also think anyone could use whatever weapon the player wants to equip, just make certain characters more proficient with X and Y weapons.
|
|
|
Post by firedjinn on Nov 13, 2018 0:17:38 GMT
I like WitchRolina's idea about weapons. The different characters having distinctive weapon proficiencies seems cool for characterization/worldbuilding-type stuff (not to mention making characters with similar playstyles/stats feel less redundant in battle), and might help simplify the system later on. Armorwise... yeah, GS-style sounds best.
I do have some questions, though.
What exactly is the "martial" weapon type? Is it just bare-handed attacks? If so, how would you be stopped from using it if not proficient?
What would the "symbol" weapon be?
|
|
|
Post by zeldafan30 on Nov 13, 2018 2:41:53 GMT
WitchRolina ahhh okay I think I get it now. I dunno. I guess what I was trying to say was to have each character have a different feel and not wield the same kind of weapons, and I just presented it in a bad way lol. Regardless, there's plenty of potential combinations (that also make sense) that we could go for when it comes to who can wield what. I feel like this is something we can play around and be creative with, but it's ultimately up to what everyone agrees what we do with the weapons system. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
PK_Water
Writer
Already Half Xehanort
Posts: 27
|
Post by PK_Water on Nov 13, 2018 13:29:13 GMT
That sounds nice, but it could take away any reason to use different weapons, explore and spend money. Why use the expensive Silver Bow or find the mythical Rain Bow when the Wooden Bow from the first dungeon does its job just as well? Unless we slap gimmicks onto every weapon, but that's a different issue.
|
|
|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 13, 2018 14:26:26 GMT
I like WitchRolina's idea about weapons. The different characters having distinctive weapon proficiencies seems cool for characterization/worldbuilding-type stuff (not to mention making characters with similar playstyles/stats feel less redundant in battle), and might help simplify the system later on. Armorwise... yeah, GS-style sounds best.
I do have some questions, though.
What exactly is the "martial" weapon type? Is it just bare-handed attacks? If so, how would you be stopped from using it if not proficient?
What would the "symbol" weapon be?
Martial is basically martial arts weapons. It's Fists and Claws crammed into one, with maybe Tonfas, Nunchacu, and Quarterstaves falling into this category as well. Symbols are Ankhs, but expanded to include all religious-themed staves, such as crosses. Took the idea for the name from D&D. Since there were only 3 Ankhs in all of Golden Sun (Blessed Ankh, Angelic Ankh, and Clotho's Distaff), I felt that this category is in desperate need of expansion. zeldafan30 : Yeah, the whole purpose of having more weapon types to me is to make the characters stand apart from each other a bit more. Besides, GS had NPCs with spears and scythes, and it always struck me as odd that we never got to use them, even in Dark Dawn. @dreyraz : Then what's the point of having weapons? PK_Water is right on this - it's one of those things that sounds great in theory, but it actually takes away a lot form the player, making money and progression feel pointless. Besides, if we design things well, we want players to have a choice of builds as they progress through the game. I actually don't like how Golden Sun did things here, where each weapon was just a flat statistical upgrade. Sure, we'll still be having progression through equipment, but I like the idea of having parity between Heavy, Light, and Mystic gear, and giving the player a real choice over what they should be equipping based on the enemies they're facing. Since we have the Physical/Magical split, that's one way we can do it. Another could be trends, like having heavy armors boost Attack and HP, having Mystic armors boost Casting and EP, and having Light armors boost Agility and Crits. Disgaea I think does a good example of this, where each weapon type feels unique and different from one another, both having different skills (for us, this would be different unleash trends and styles), and boosting different stats (Swords are more reliable, while axes hit harder but have lower accuracy in Disgaea). Galda : Sounds great in theory, but you're asking for something like "by equipping gear a character isn't proficient in, they only get 10/25% of the stats from it", and in doing so you're only wasting the player's time. By just not letting them equip it, we actually make things more convenient for the player.
|
|
|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 13, 2018 14:41:03 GMT
But does it fit a game trying to be based on Golden Sun? I can see adding secondary stats and unleash trends, but making every weapon have a multiplier based on character stats? That doesn't feel like an iteration, it feels like a different game.
It would work well for a game based on Suikoden or FF8 though, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 13, 2018 15:59:52 GMT
Level is a character stat too, my statement was not incorrect.
I think one should know where and why to add complexity to a game - and I don't think this is an example that should be done. We do need better complexity in our weapon design, but not in that direction. I'd rather us focus on how to make weapon types stand apart from each other (How is an Axe different than a Spear? Why would you use one over the other?), rather than focus on how to make one weapon usable over its superior (how is a Bronze Sword different than a Steel Sword? Steel sword is made of better stuff. Never use bronze when you have good steel.)
However, I think your idea has much better merit when it comes to spells - as higher spell tiers are learned, having a system in place to give a reason to consider their lesser counterparts is definitely worth considering. It just... doesn't work as well with weapons.
Definitely bring this back up when we reach spells.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2018 0:00:38 GMT
| Offensive | Defensive | Control | Balanced | Physical | Axes | Spears | Hammers | Swords | Mixed | Bows | Maces | Blades | Martial | Magical | Staves | Symbols | Scythe | Daggers |
You missed hoes and watering cans On a serious note I like it, though I'm still not sure what you mean by "control". Why not define each kind of weapon by its weakness (or conversely its 2 strengths), which could be: Damage, Defense, Accuracy (or speed) In this case I'd suggest this general * layout:
| Low Def (Mdef) | Low Atk (Matk) | Low Acc (Speed) | Balanced | Physical | Axes | Spears | Hammers | Swords | Mixed | Martial | Maces | Bows | Rapiers | Magical | Daggers | Symbols? | Scythe | Staves |
*It might be fun to implement a few exceptions to the rule, just throwing that out there.
|
|
|
Post by WitchRolina on Nov 14, 2018 13:57:59 GMT
Attack, Defense, Indirect. My personal system has the fourth be Break, but it also incorporates mechanics that don't really exist in what we're trying to do, so I felt Balanced was a better option. I rearranged a bunch of stuff as a result.
Control/Indirect is about effects that help control the flow of battle. Increased ailment/effect infliction rate, Increased speed for higher priority, inflicting PP damage on blows, etc. There's ways to do this without much trouble. We can express this both statistically, and in terms of unleash trends.
For example, Offense weapons may have unleashes that try to lower defense, or in the case of Bows I like to advocate that they're the only weapon type to have AoE unleashes is its expression of offense (much like how DD approached them). Defense weapons may have unleashes that lower enemy offences. Control would lower speed, inflict ailments, damage PP, etc. Balanced would have a wide variety of different kinds of unleash.
Statistically, I could see Offense category have a pure focus on offensive stats, defensive sacrifices some offense in favor of defensive stats (ex: Using a Base Value to distribute stats across equally-strong weapons, Spears have 90% influence in Attack, 20% influence in Defense. For a 120 Base Power weapon, that gives us a Spear with 108 Attack and 24 Defense. Control weapons sacrifice attack for speed (blades are a great example), or have a similar statistical spread with this ideal in mind. Balanced could either not have a trend, or would have an even spread.
For those curios, any damaging ability used by a character equipped with a Break weapon broke barriers in my Gradient Soul system, which I intended to have be more common, but more counterable.
We should also consider if weapons have an effect on spells by equipping them. Like, if you equip a Staff vs Equipping a Dagger, is there any difference outside the stats gained and the unleashes?
Also, note about Blades: In GS, blades were both Rapiers and Katanas. I interpret this as Dexerity-Focused swords, where precise/accurate strikes are more important than the strength of the attack. Swords, by contrast, would be Strength-based weapons.
|
|