• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AbnormalVoid

  1. It's less letting enemies gain an advantage, and more trying to keep the field as level as possible. Giving a pointless advantage in any situation only really devalues the inherent quality of the battle. Faith works better, I agree, and tying reactions to it made no sense at all. I really like your cowardly attack idea, though. Attacks that do more damage with an inverse brave formula is a fun concept. To fix Brave and Faith, I'd give the following addition to my previous fix for Br/Fa: Have Brave work the same as Faith, only with Physical damage instead of Magic damage. Consider how the stat is "Brave". Bravery can also be associated with rashness. From that mindset doing more and receiving more Physical damage makes sense, in the same way Faith works from the standpoint that when you believe more fervently in mystic powers, it makes them stronger, both for and against you. Mix that with my (theoretical) system where you can use equipment and job set-ups to determine your Brave and Faith, and you have an interesting system of give and take. Now, this would obviously require a reworking of the formula, I suggest: The Faith (and Brave, in this new situation) formula would work as (CFa/50)*(TFa/50) instead of (CFa/100)*(TFa/100). This way, 50 Brave or Faith would just be the regular damage of the ability. The lowest and highest Brave and Faith would be 100 and 25 respectively. Meaning at 25, they'd take and do half damage, and at 100, they'd take and give twice the damage. The ability to get as low or high as 25 and 100 would only be possible under extreme circumstances. Ugh, I spent way too long mulling over this theoretical situation, I'm like half asleep. In any case, I'd probably add the new formula to FFT vanilla, in place of the current faith formula. It would probably fix a lot of the problems with the accuracy of status effects. Would need to balance...every magic spell's power...but yeah, it's a good idea. rofl
  2. Yeah, useless jobs are another one. Or more accurately, less useful jobs. It's not that they didn't have their strengths, but compared to other jobs, they were severely outclassed. I feel in 1.3, too many jobs tried to do too many things, instead of being focused around doing one role really well. Now, there could be some variety within that role, but when designing a class for FFT, there needs to be a through line that ties it all together and subconsciously contextualizes it to the player. This is something I feel vanilla did really well. Some things just weren't as good as others for other reasons, like straight up power output, speed, movement and attack range. Wanna have the easiest FFT run of your life? Play with 5 Ninjas with item. You win, period.
  3. I was considering mentioning this possibility in my last post, but realized it wouldn't really be feasible, since it's more of a system that relies on having a larger selection of selection of units to meet the needs of each individual situation. Also, in this situation, you always get the upper hand, since the enemy has no ability to counter this advantage. While that's also true for the player's knowledge of static aspects of the opposing team's make-up, I feel like that's more in service to the enemy as a designed challenge, over the random nature of arbitrary strengths and weaknesses. In regards to Brave and Faith, they're definitely very different in regards to their applications, but I feel they could be valuable assets if only they reflected the actual inherent job and equipment qualities of each character. Such as how I had explained in this previous post:
  4. It's never encouraged, but people are still going to do it. People are always drawn to the path of least resistance, it's a well known concept. Putting exploitable systems in your game, especially when they provide no real depth, is a terrible idea. You cannot fight human nature, never ever try. Now, considering the fact that you're going to experience fortunes and misfortunes in regards to randomized elements, one must also consider how much depth is actually being added with this. If in the end, it, more likely than not, averages out, then was there any actual significance to the randomness in the first place? Over and above the actual structured depth of the game, did the randomness provide any real substance? I'll say it again, I don't think additional randomness adds any depth to tactical RPGs, or for that matter, any game with sufficient strategic depth. The variety of outcomes already available through the vast array of choices and possibilities is staggering. Adding on top of it merely creates an annoying layer of strategic obfuscation.
  5. I figure another way to make brave-faith better is to make their influence on chance-based abilities less noticeable. Say, reaction abilities chance could be like, 80% base chance and the formula could be ((Brave/5)+80)%. With a similarly lighter effect on spell power. Still a flawed system, but giving it a lighter influence to match its already forced existence in the game would at least be more tolerable.
  6. My point wasn't that Brave/Faith is a problem because of the unfair odds it may provide. My point was that it's pointless, in the grand scheme. Adding a factor of forced randomness that does little to affect the outcome of a match (beyond short, concise matches, as you mentioned) does nothing to increase the depth of the experience. Even in those short, cramped matches, where Brave and Faith do make a difference, one just needs to do a quick reset to roll the odds back and get something that's hopefully more preferable. It's very important to keep in mind that the worth of every engagement can only be judged by the best and worst case scenarios. If those scenarios are wildly different, for no other reason than because of an arbitrarily random, substance-less system, then it's a poor way to add randomness to the game. It's better to focus on creating a challenging engagement, without the worry that it will fall into the territory of unfairness, or otherwise, trivialize the engagement by becoming too simple. A game like Final Fantasy Tactics thrives around designed engagements. Where random engagements may be fun or interesting in certain situations, they're also, in all likelihood, going to suffer from not having a synergistic approach to their equipment, abilities and teamwork. Not that I don't think they should still be included, but a system that gives them a reliable leg-up is preferable. The system I detailed previously, in regards to a revamped Zodiac system, supports this concept instead of working against it. Instead of working in a manner that is unpredictable, where one cannot say if they'll have the signs necessary to be compatible with a foe, it's designed around altering the inherent qualities of the unit itself, providing sufficient context to the player in regards to what they're going to be up against. It allows for each unit to be given proper signs to enhance their most important qualities, and allows for units to function quite differently from one another. A Virgo Priest might be entirely different from an Ares Priest, but there could still be depth behind each. It's a best-case pipe-dream system, as I'm not sure something could even be implemented with FFT's limiting code, but I feel it accurately details the kind of system that would be desirable as opposed to the ill-conceived system in place by default.
  7. Go right ahead, all my ideas for FFT are fair game, since I don't really plan on modding it myself. lol I just really appreciate discussing the structure and possibility offered by the design of the game, since it's so vastly open to interesting design
  8. Yeah, they're a redundant factor. They're inherently balanced, but considering the fact that they're an independent system that doesn't rely on any outside input, the entire system balances itself into oblivion. A system where each Zodiac offered specific benefits and detriments, such as innate status buffs/debuffs, or innate stat bonuses/penalties, etc. would have been far more interesting. It would synergize nicely with existing systems, and create a huge opportunity for character building depth. Systems in a game should work like an interconnecting web. where everything feeds into the strategic depth of everything else. Not like a pile of blankets, where each system is placed over top of the rest, only tangentially adding depth. (Not a hard and fast rule, I know, but something to keep in mind.)
  9. I see, so jump is applied as long as a character has the Lancer skillset equipped, as Primary or Secondary?
  10. Did she? Huh, good shit. It's honestly the best way to go. Jump is too limited to build an entire class around, in something like FFT.
  11. I actually had an idea to make Jump a passive command, like Defend or Equip/Change, which is innate on Lancers, in addition to a more varied Dragoon skill-set. If someone else wants to figure out how to actually implement that idea, they're more than welcome to it. lol
  12. Not sure this has been addressed yet, as I'm still using an older Beta, but I figured I'd make you guys aware, in any case. https://clips.twitch.tv/DistinctMoralHummingbirdPlanking Jackpot doesn't seem to be working quite right...
  13. Instead of randomness for Brave and Faith, it would be better served by being a constant amount at its base, a straight 50Br/50Fa, for each character. (Or maybe 55/45 for males, and 45/55 for females, to match the existing delineation of Males as physical units, and Females as Magical Units.) From this point, the character's Brave and Faith would then reflect: Their job class, which makes sense, due to stats changing to suit the qualities of the job already. Their equipment, since there's already a tiered system of gear that either leans towards a physical side (Brave/Armor) or a magical side (Faith/Robes) or a middling side (Light Armor/No Preference). And, possibly, certain passive abilities and status effects. (Again, yeah, all wonderful but unrealistic ideas for a scenario in which you could work past FFT's heavily hard-coded bad game design. lol) Having it randomized gives it an arbitrary feeling, same with Zodiac signs, since it creates such a huge difference in outcome with no control or ability or optimize. In addition to this, most units have random signs/br-fa, therefore you arbitrarily gain either an advantage or a disadvantage that averages itself out over the course of all battles, effectively resulting in no real depth gained. Zodiac signs feel more like something that would benefit a game where A. You could see the enemy prior to a match, so you could match your stats with theirs, and B. Had a much larger team of simpler units so you could have a large variety of choices when assembling a team to combat your enemy's compatibility.
  14. And yeah, I know it is probably impossible without heavy assembly. lol It's why I started working on a new game instead of modding.
  15. Yeah, and with best compat, concentrate, and decent speed, steal can get up to 50% as it is, might as well keep it at that constant rate. Something that might make it more interesting is if it was conditional, and could only be used on enemies who were in critical status, or maybe turned into a "Loot" command, and could only be used to take equipment from KO'd units. Could also make it so it only affected enemies on the same height level, and only from the back, making it so it can be effectively blocked, instead of unreliably dodged. I regards to something like Invite, it would be interesting if it was made conditional to the effect of only being able to be used on the last remaining enemy, when they're in critical status. This way, it can't be used to cheese fights, and you can fill your roster without it having much effect on the difficulty of battles.
  16. RNG doesn't actually provide more meaningful variety. There is enough diversity in the variety of cascading events and decisions that occur within battles to account for a countless variety of outcomes. Consider the following: http://www.bernmedical.com/blog/how-many-possible-move-combinations-are-there-in-chess In chess, a game with absolutely no randomness, where each piece can only do one thing, there are literally billions of possible outcomes after only four turns. This is derived purely from the consequences of the strictly intended actions by each player. Adding absurd amounts of randomness on top of an already diverse tapestry of outcomes, and considering it an improvement, is completely ignorant of reality.
  17. There are people who enjoy doing crack cocaine and voting for the green party. Just because people like to make bad decisions, doesn't mean those choices should be enabled. Then it's time to get rid of them, or redesign those abilities to function in another manner, with difficult conditions that don't rely on shitty random mechanics. There are plenty of ways to balance them besides with other status effects, and many don't even need to be balanced in this manner. They just need to be made easier to inflict for both the player and the enemy. Maybe removed entirely in the case of something like Petrify, unless the properties of it can be changed through assembly. There are plenty of better ways to deter sandbagging. Low RNG is a BAD MECHANIC. It's lazy, ineffective, and frustrating. Please, for the love of god, stop defending it unless you have a point better than "It's like, my opinion, man."
  18. There is no good strategy to low chance RNG in the context of a Total Success/Total Failure situation. The only good strategy is to avoid it entirely. High risk/Reward is exactly how Lotteries take advantage of people who don't understand statistics (to a far greater extent, granted). It doesn't matter how great a successful outcome is, a low chance of seeing that outcome completely removes the strategic benefit of that outcome existing at all. The low chance means the ability will be used very little, because while you're missing constantly, an enemy will walk over and rip your ass open. The times it will be used is as a last-ditch gambit, where it's your only option of success in an already hopeless situation. You use it, it fails, you fail anyway. You use it, it succeeds, you succeed, but do you really deserve that success? Every poor choice you made led to that hopeless situation. It's only the result of an overpowered ability, locked off with a measure that doesn't actually make it any more balanced, that completely bailed you out. The player then moves on, learning nothing from their mistakes, and gaining no actual strategic benefit beyond relying on terribly designed abilities. Congratulations, the depth of your game has been subverted entirely. Charm was only an example. The point of the example is that abilities should be balanced by what they do, not by the chance that they'll do it. Giving players the ability to formulate strategies based on weighing the positives and negatives of using abilities in regards to a given situation is infinitely better than constantly rolling the dice on boring, broken abilities. It's one of the few things the original FFT never really grasped, which is a shame, because the potential for it is staggering.
  19. I don't think I've had a single issue using the new Phoenix Downs. The only time I've been screwed by them is when I wasn't being careful with them. Raise your character with a "Hail Mary" measure, without making sure to time it so a heal will resolve afterwards, or that the enemy had attacked already, and of course you're going to waste them.
  20. What is the purpose of including abilities that people shouldn't use in a game? Why have that ability at all?
  21. 1.3 isn't even particularly very hard, it's just poorly balanced. A lot of people will argue that shifting balance against the player is the best, or perhaps only, way to increase difficulty. This is patently wrong. The best way to increase challenge is through the diversity and complexity of the challenge being offered, so that a player will still have the ability to overcome if they use their resources properly. Often, this is done in new ways they hadn't considered, given the change of pace, or subversion of rules, from previous challenges. This way, each new challenge can broaden their strategic understanding of the game, preparing them for further challenges. Adding boat-loads of RNG into the mix is the worst possible answer to balance. It removes agency from the player, and places it in the hands of chance, which cares nothing for you or your strategy, as good as it may be in every other aspect. While my Charm/Slow analogy was just an example, I'd still say it's balanced, due to the remaining slow effect being the price paid for the opportunity of being able to remove charm from your unit, before they do anything detrimental, and vise-versa for the enemy. Besides that, there's also the availability of status protection for fights. If there's a unit in a fight that constantly uses that particular Charm/Slow ability, but you haven't made the opportunity to guard against it, that's on you. Also, if properly balanced, the player still has the ability to use the same abilities against the enemy. We should let these effects be more commonly used and inflicted. They shake up a battle, turning the tide in interesting ways that make both sides bend to each-other's wills. Making them unreliable to use, or only reliable for the enemy to use, takes away from the whole point of their existence in the game. Of course, the complete removal of chance from an encounter tends to make it boring, as you don't get those spine-tingling moments of anticipation, where one wonders if their attack is going to hit, or if an attack is going to hit them. This NEEDS to be kept in check, however. Anything less than a 50%, all or nothing, chance removes the point of having the skill at all. If an attack has a greater chance of failing, <50%, and doing nothing at all, then the ability may as well be useless, as it cannot be used in any reliable sense. This point is often obfuscated by the fact that the player can repeat battles ad nauseam, continuing to roll the dice until a favorable outcome presents itself. If you isolate battles into individual instances, then using skills with a statistically unreliable chance is next to pointless, as doing nothing at all and preserving CT, and sometimes MP, will often be the better choice. Now, the point we can agree on is that 1.3 is absolutely hard to enjoy. Where we disagree is about whether or not subjecting yourself to something that's tedious and irritating is a worthwhile endeavor. If that's what you're up for, go ahead, 1.3 isn't going anywhere.
  22. Nah, it's fine. Charm really isn't that OP, you just need to be prepared to counteract it, either with equipment or a quick simple attack. In any case, whether you agree or not with the above, the trick to balancing more powerful debuffs is to have alternate effects. Say, an ability that causes both Charm and Slow. They're charmed, but their charm has reduced effectiveness, due to them being slowed. There are better ways. There are ALWAYS better ways than sodomizing players with RNG. That's ludicrous.
  23. For status effects, yeah, I think straight-up static evasion amounts are probably for the best. Scrap the both the character evasion and faith evasion checks, altogether. Protecting from bad statuses any more than that can be the job of status protection items. Just have to keep the RNG in check. For statuses and otherwise. Nothing below 50%. Anything below a coin flip is pure tedium.
  24. What I'd say 1.3 needs, and what FFT needs, to be honest, is to calm the fuck down with the RNG. The chance of doing anything going below 50% is just annoying. A coin flip should be the limit of forced randomness. The use of something like the Blind status would be an exception, of course. In the case of something like debuffs, where randomness is essentially used as a crutch to balance them, I'd make the ability to heal them much slightly more common, and the ability to inflict them much more spread out. If you see a group of units with particular jobs and skillsets, you should be able to tell "Okay, they're gonna debuff me like so", and come up with a plan to counteract it. One job focused around debuffs, in the classic, RNG-balanced sense, is dull as hell. Maybe a jobset of less-serious debuffs would still be fine, I guess. Just gotta keep it sane. Making them unreliable to use isn't the answer.