 |
Castle Paradox
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
 Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Don't use my argument to try and prove Moogle1 wrong. It is easier for the player to figure out how the numbers relate to each other, but difficulty balancing is a different issue altogether.
_________________
TheGiz> Am I the only one who likes to imagine that Elijah Wood's character in Back to the Future 2, the kid at the Wild Gunman machine in the Cafe 80's, is some future descendant of the AVGN? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rimudora
Psychopath yandere
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Newbie_Power wrote: | | It is easier to calculate how many hits a player can take with a low HP/Damage system. |
|
Like Moogle1 said, that's not really true. When you play a Final Fantasy game, how often do you pay attention to anything after the first two digits of your character's HP, if even that? Balancing a game where the characters have 9000 hp is the same as balancing a game where the characters have 9 hp. This is the same for the player as it is for the designer.
The only real difference HP values make lies more in the progression of the game. If a character gains HP and attack values quickly, leveling up will make a bigger difference and enemies that pose a threat at the beginning of the game will quickly become useless later on. (cough, Final Fantasy) On the other hand, if the characters and the enemies don't gain that much more HP as the game progresses, then the player will have to make better use of what he has on hand (rather than waiting for a distant level up) and enemies the player faces at the beginning of the game will remain relevant at the end. (a minimalist run of any Zelda game might give you an idea of this) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Newbie_Power wrote: | | Don't use my argument to try and prove Moogle1 wrong. It is easier for the player to figure out how the numbers relate to each other, but difficulty balancing is a different issue altogether. |
First of you didn't say player and second the math is always the same no matter if a player or a developer uses it. It's not like developers are super-human calculation machines.
It is way easier to balance with a low max hp.
For example:
You want to make a boss that can be defeated at level 10 but not at level 9. If you use low max hp achieving this is really easy. You know the player will be hit around 10 times before he can defeat the boss. Now you could just set the player's max hp to let's say 15 and make hp and def raise by 2 at level 10 so that the player will only take 1 HP damage per hit in stead of 2 HP damage per hit and thus is now able to defeat the boss.
On higher numbers this is not so easy. Let's say the player has 1500 HP at level 9. Even if you set the max HP to 9999 at level 99 this HP won't raise by much more than 30 on the next level up. And def is the same, you can make the def raise by more than 5 on the next level up even if you set it to 999 at level 99. So now a level up is way more meaningless. And it's really hard to get a good battle balance where the battles and equipments actually mean anything.
If you add skills and randomness into this calculation the difficulty with high max hp raises exponentially in comparison to low max hp.
Besides if you really think high values are as easy to balance as low ones why do most of you never go above 999 max hp? You said earlier higher numbers are more impressive and if they are as easy there's no reason to not at least let them go up to 32767 (after that you'd need to modify the source).
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newbie_Power
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1762
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | First of you didn't say player and second the math is always the same no matter if a player or a developer uses it. It's not like developers are super-human calculation machines. |
You're right. I wasn't clear, but now I will be: It is easier for a player to find significance between new damage values. If you spend a portion of a game doing one damage, and then you are suddenly able to do two damage, that is a significant increase for that type of game. Large number values are more steadily growing, so there are not as many "huge jumps" in power, so to speak.
That's what I'm talking about. It's easier for the player to realize that they're doing four times as many damage. If you're playing a game where you are doing 4000 damage, and your previous amounts of damage were statically 1000, 2000, and 3000, you will likely wonder "where are the numbers in-between?"
To me, that's probably the difference between a low number system and a high number system, because you would need to use decimals to have "in-between" numbers in a low stat game. It's also probably why Moogle1 said that lower numbers are not easier to balance, because of lack of said in-between numbers.
_________________
TheGiz> Am I the only one who likes to imagine that Elijah Wood's character in Back to the Future 2, the kid at the Wild Gunman machine in the Cafe 80's, is some future descendant of the AVGN? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well I guess if you remove all the in-between numbers it's as easy.
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rya.Reisender wrote: | | Besides if you really think high values are as easy to balance as low ones why do most of you never go above 999 max hp? You said earlier higher numbers are more impressive and if they are as easy there's no reason to not at least let them go up to 32767 (after that you'd need to modify the source). |
Heroes can only go up to 9999 anyway. I really wish the arbitrary caps were lifted and the entire 32-bit scale were made available, but this is what we have to work with.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rya.Reisender
Snippy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would you actually want to make a game with way higher HP values?
_________________
Snippy:
"curt or sharp, esp. in a condescending way" (Oxford American Dictionary)
"fault-finding, snappish, sharp" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, UK)
1. short-tempered, snappish, 2. unduly brief or curt (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moogle1
Scourge of the Seas
Halloween 2006 Creativity Winner
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 3377
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. If not for heroes, then at least for enemies.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
