Castle Paradox

[msw188]

I thought that it might be cool to have a thread specifically for ideas concerning status afflictions (SA) that we would like to see added in the future, as well as any ideas about how to implement them, if they are already possible, etc.

1. To start, I think a 'confused' SA would be very nice to have. The attack would target the 'confused register', which would work the same as the 'stun register' does now (a countdown). While confused, a character (hero or enemy) is controlled exclusively by the computer, and all targetting features are 'negated'. That is to say, if an attack had target bitset 'ally', this would now be interpreted as 'enemy'.

Possible problems:
A) How to have the computer pick an attack for a hero? Perhaps a series of random numbers: first to choose attack or a spell list (do not include the item list, perhaps), then if it is a spell list proceed the same way random spell lists are done.

B) Attacks that target dead heroes. Find a way to ignore these, perhaps?

C) 'Untargettable by ___' bitsets. Should this be inverted for confused characters as well...?


2. I will also re-post here my idea concerning a 'mute' SA. Have the 'mute register' work the same as the 'stun register' (a countdown). Have a bitset for attacks called 'Fail when user is muted'. Here, the word 'mute' ought to be a customizable global text string. Seems easy enough.

Possible problems:
A) Should the unusable attacks still be choosable for the hero/enemy? If so, then they just fail. If not, then I think it will be very difficult to find a way to gray out these attacks for heroes, and to have the computer know not to choose them for enemies (how does it know not to choose attacks that an enemy does not have enough MP for?)


3. Thought of this while typing the above. A 'reflect' SA would be nice. Again, the register works as a countdown. Have a bitset for attacks called 'Target user when chosen target is reflective', or something like that. An editable caption would be nice to attach to this, which is triggered whenever an attack is reflected (perhaps this could be a global text string) - something to indicate to the player that an attack was reflected.

Possible problems:
A) Pretty much the same as the 'confused' problems. Attacks that target the dead, enemies that should be untargettable, etc.

B) How do 'spread' attacks work? Would they cause difficulty if, say, two of the four enemies are currently reflective, and a hero uses a spread attack? Ideally, the non-reflective enemies should get hit, and the hero should get hit twice...

[Mike Caron]

#1) Maybe.

#2) I think they should just be greyed out. And, no need for "mute" to be customizable, since it doesn't show up anywhere in Game. I'll work on this first, when I get a chance.

#3) Reflect works like this in FF: If you cast a spell on multiple targets, and they reflect, you're only hit once. Or, maybe we should have a bitset. Either way, Maybe.
_________________
I stand corrected. No rivers ran blood today. At least, none that were caused by us.

Final Fantasy Q
OHR Developer BLOG
Official OHRRPGCE Wiki and FAQ

[msw188]

What is FF? If you mean Final Fantasy, I'm pretty sure I remember in FF3 (VI) being hit with multiple Fire3's because I had it set to spread. But the reflections had the possibility of hitting various members of the party, not just the caster. I think that it should not be this way. Furthermore, a spell that is targetting an ally should not reflect back at enemies, but should still reflect back on the caster (or this should be controllable via bitsets).

What about multiple reflections? Again, maybe there should be a bitset where the game-maker can choose whether spells only get reflected one and then go through (as in Final Fantasy), or they get reflected twice and then dissipate (I think Dragon Warrior worked this way...?)

[Mike Caron]

Actually, in Final Fantasy (all that I've played), spells targeted at allies do get reflected at enemies. That's how you would cast spells on a reflected enemy: You cast reflect on an ally, and bounce spells off of him. But, the catch is that you can't use any healing spells.
_________________
I stand corrected. No rivers ran blood today. At least, none that were caused by us.

Final Fantasy Q
OHR Developer BLOG
Official OHRRPGCE Wiki and FAQ

[KainMinter]

If I may also add, here are some status afflictions I'd like to see in OHR:

1)Mute - Grey out attacks that have 'affected by mute' bitset on. On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only.

2)Confuse - Automatically use base attack on random selectable target. Cureable over time or by attack with 'Reset Confuse' bitset on. (To be placed on physical attacks that already do something else so the creator doesnt have to link them to and attack that targets confuse bitset and resets it.)

3)Sleep - Character's ATB doesn't fill. Voided over time or if HP is altered.

4)Paralyze - Character's turn has a chance to be voided. IE: The menu still comes up and you can still select commands, but there is a % chance that they will not execute. A wear off over time affliction

5)Petrified - Character's ATB does not fill. On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only. Perhaps a greyscaled palette forced onto character's graphic. If all characters end up petrified it is game over, much like having all characters dead.

6)Base Attack Disabled- Disables character's base attack command. On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only.

7)Item Command Disabled- Disables character's item command. On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only.

8)Morphed - Status affliction that temporarily changes a hero/enemy to another hero/enemy selectable by the game designer. This can be used to recreate enfeebling spells such as Imp, Toad, Pig, and Mini, as well as enhancing spells such as Terra's transform to an esper ability. This temporary character swap should reset all stats to the new character's base stats except current hp/mp should remain as is. Most likely should be a wear off over time style affliction.

9)Reflect - Attacks with bitset 'Affected by Reflect' are retargeted to a single target on the opposite side of the battle field from which they were reflected. Retargetting ignores targets that are untargettable while selecting a target, and unless the attack is originally able to target dead targets, it will ignore those as well. Perhaps an attack animation selectable in general game properties by the game creator can play on the original target to emphesize that reflect has been activated. This would be a wear off over time affliction.

10)Zombie - Ignore Cure instead of harm bitset. On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only.

11)Curse - No EXP gained after battle by afflicted party member. EXP still distributed to other members as normal. (aka, they dont get his cut.)On/Off status affliction type. Curable by item/attack only.

[Andrusi]

[Raekuul]

KM, It sounds like you have FFVII on the brain.
_________________
A broken clock is still right twice a day.

[KainMinter]

[Mike Caron]

WARNING: Long post

[AdrianX]

..still,it would be great if all of these status afflictions have cooler status indicators,any plans on creating seperate "status afflicted hero pictures"?

[KainMinter]

[AdrianX]

..well how about status indicat0rs above the hero's heads? is it possible?

[KainMinter]

Even if there wasn't any more memory for graphics I imagine it could be done using the already loaded font rather than imported graphics.

[Mike Caron]

Ok, when we eventually drop QB support, we can then add all the hero graphics in the world.

For now, I think I'll just leave what we have done, and focus on other pressing issues.
_________________
I stand corrected. No rivers ran blood today. At least, none that were caused by us.

Final Fantasy Q
OHR Developer BLOG
Official OHRRPGCE Wiki and FAQ

[msw188]

Okay, we really need to discuss the whole reflection thing. It is true that in Final Fantasy, a reflected spell would target a random character that was on the opposite team as the one who was reflective.

I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A FLAW.

It seems to make much more sense to me to have the reflected attack always target the user of the attack, regardless of where the original target was. But I can see the other side. I think that what may be in order here would be two different reflect-type status ailments, one each way.

And I don't see why we should have KM's version of confuse if mine in the first post is feasible. Do people feel that a confused character should ONLY be able to attack? What if it is an enemy, who has no 'base' attack?

The 'reset affliction counter' bitset would be nice though. In particular, it would be nice to have one of these for every affliction, so the creator could decide what gets cured by what (and this would make cureall type things MUCH easier to make than my current series of chains).

I don't like the zombie affliction as it currently stands. I use the 'cure instead of harm' bitset for a lot more than just curing HP, and this would interfere badly. A workable undead status affliction would need to be much more complicated. Perhaps it would be better to have bitsets that negate an attack's damage if it is a certain element ('negates cure elemental damage').