Welcome to the new Sinister Design forums!

Main Menu


Started by Zhampir, February 26, 2010, 07:25:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Do you want em?



To get the gist of it:

Quote from: Zhampir on February 26, 2010, 06:29:46 PM
I read on the old forums that weaknesses weren't supported by the current game engine, and I thought, why not? I'm guessing the resistance set-up is probably quite simple, like dividing the enemy damage by 2. So, couldn't you simply have a new type of "resistance" say, -Heat, -Cold, -Physical, -Light, -Shadow, as opposed to normal Heat, Cold, Physical, Light, Shadow, and make it multiply the damage by 2? I still haven't gone into flash coding much, but all it would need extra is simply making the .5 into a variable with an if then preceding it checking if the first character is a - or not (I forget the line that does that, midseg or something) The - sign could even come after the name such as Heat- depending on how you check for which resistance is appropiate.

So, what I'm saying is, couldn't that be a simple way to create a weakness?

Quote from: CraigStern on February 26, 2010, 07:06:10 PM
If it's just a question of multiplying the associated damage by a set amount if a creature resists the opposite element, you're right--that wouldn't be too hard to code.

The biggest reason I can think of not to do this is that it would require a fair bit of rebalancing. (One example comes immediately to mind: Luca in the spirit cellar mission. Her physical resistance would cause her to take double damage from just about every enemy in the mission, since they all use Mental attacks--this would make her much less useful.)

On the other hand, this might make combat that much more strategic and challenging. And I suppose I could limit the "weakness" effect to the four primary elements (Heat, Cold, Light, Shadow). If you like, feel free to create a thread in TSoG Wish List where folks can discuss this idea, and I'll consider adding it in.

Craig misinterpreted my meaning slightly, or at least, I did not explain myself fully or correctly.

What I meant is that, for characters with out a resistance, (for example, an enemy I support, the wood golem) they could have a weakness. A golem made of wood should burn when hit by a pyrohail or pyroblast correct?

Although this could apply to characters with resistances, like the shadowlings could be weak to light, but as I don't think that their oppositions, the ghosts, should really be weak to shadows (since many ghosts live in Crypts) and no shadowlings have ever seemed to be affected by the light.

What I'm proposing is that certain characters are weak to certain elements. This allows for uber healthy characters to be taken down by an elementally weaker but elementally opposite opponent. Giving rise to even greater indepth strategy. No longer can you rely on one character to take out an army but you must switch it up and perhaps, use a character you've never used before to take out the boss.

Please discuss at your leisure.^^


This "weakness" issue was discussed extensively on the old forums and was, ultimately, rejected. Personally, I am against it. The resistance already effectively does what is necessary, by altering the damage taken from certain enemies, and thus adding in this extra tactical element to the battle. In my opinion, the TRPG battle engine's appeal lies in many tactical factors being included, but not ridiculously overcomplicated to the degree where this all turns into a game of probablity numbers (e.g. Sonny with numerous buffs). For instance, there are the special attacks that alter strength, speed, PsP and hp stats, then there are the resistances, as well as immunities (again, another extra twist- some enemies cannot be slain with certain formations). Then there is the side-stab and back-stab damage, which affects unit positioning. Finally, there are counterattacking units present as well, along with destructible battlefield objects, partially passable tiles (flying units only) and non-passable tiles. All this is presented in a neat and tidy fashion, such that the player can, after taking these factors into account, concentrate on tactics and gameplay itself. If there are too many elements, then the players will have to keep track of too much information and the battle will become more of a frustration, than an entertaining challenge. Furthermore, this "weakness" idea doesn't add any new extra tactical element to the battle- it's simply extending on the resistances idea, and I find that this is just at the right complexity at the moment- overcomplication will not bode well for us at all, methinks.  On the other hand, I do think that there is room to add new tactical elements to the battlefield (I think the players will be able to cope with 2 or 3 more), but I don't think overcompication of one of the less significant tacitcal elements will enhance the player experience in any way (think of having two attacks that are practically the same, except one costs a bit more than the other and, hence, deals a bit more damage- e.g. Stab/Mega Stab, Mind Shield/Mega Shield- most players will just use one of the two for most of the game, switching from one to another in the middle, and only on occaison resorting to the other: it doesn't get in the way, but it doesn't add as much to the experience as, say, was addition of Juxtapose attacks to Luca- it provided more variety).
Welcome to the forums!
Read the rules, use proper grammar and punctuation, play the games, share your ideas and enjoy your stay!


The votes are in, and I'm sorry Weakness, dear, but you've been voted off Telepath Island.