A discussion of gameplay and narrative

[quote=Searz]Searz's winter tab-cleaning, Mobafire Tab nr.1: [quote=lifebaka] There's a lot of room to tweak the system Searz suggested. First, let's assume that the freeze condition won't take effect until the end of turn, so even if the enemy is slower they'll have a chance to react. Then: what if how many consecutive turns it takes is based on a given enemy Pokemon's base body temperature, so it takes more turns to freeze them? What if a Pokemon's body temperature always tends to move back towards their base body temperature at the end of turn? What if the frozen condition only lasts while the Pokemon is at 0 degrees C or less? What if the end-of-turn body temperature changes apply even if your Pokemon is in a Pokeball? What if a Pokemon using fire (or some other) moves raises their body temperature? What if your best ice move for lowering body temperature can't get the enemy body temperature low enough to actually freeze them? Things like these would help avoid making the game too predictable, because it would introduce options for counterplay. And hiding the systems from the player would also help on that front, because the player wouldn't know exactly how much any given move cools or warms by.[/quote] NONONO, hiding systems from the player is a big nono. Transparency is the only way to go. Otherwise you'll end up with bullshit like IVs and EVs. But yes, you're hitting on quite a few of the points I was thinking of. 1. Different moves will decrease temperature different amounts. For example, there could be moves that freeze instantly, BUT have very high stamina costs and/or low damage to compensate(like say, Ice Beam?). 2. Freezing won't actually stop the enemy from using moves. Being unable to act suuuuuucks, because it, just like chance, removes the player's ability to affect the game. I'm thinking of something along the lines of dealing damage each turn and halving the Speed stat. That is my modified version of the Speed stat ofc. Which basically works to speed up the ticking down to your next move. I.e: pokemon with 300speed can attack 2 times in the same time period where pokemon with 100speed can attack once. So halving speed would significantly slow down the enemies' "turns". 3. Temperature will go back towards the ambient every turn. Possibly even in the pokeball. I'm thinking along the lines of having one ambient temperature and one for both the pokemon in the battle. And these affect each other. When body temperature goes up and then cools off again the ambient temperature goes up very slightly and when ambient temperature goes up the body temp of the pokemon slowly go up too. I.e: the body temperature of the pokemon slowly changes toward the ambient temperature(and ambient temp probably slowly goes toward the standard too, possibly at different speeds depending on the place and weather/season). Then there could be different kinds of moves that heat up or cool down either the opponent or the ambient temperature, or even both. 4. Freezing will thaw when you go above 0 degrees C. 5. Ice and water pokemon obviously have resistance to cold and I think more organic methods of resistance/super-effectiveness would be a good idea to implement through systems like these. Simple bonuses to damage are pretty boring honestly, so I wouldn't mind getting rid of the old effectiveness system at all. [quote]I'm not sure. Some chance-based games allow hit chances and such to go all the way up to 100% or down to 0%. You're not taking a risk in those circumstances. Unfortunately, most of the examples I have of this kind of thing aren't really good, because you don't reach those big numbers through the use of real skill-based mechanics that interact with the chance-based ones. Still, I think the basic ideas behind positional-based accuracy bonuses (like flanking in D&D or ganging up bonuses in WH40K Roleplaying), aiming accuracy bonuses (such as in WH40K Roleplaying), and ability-use accuracy bonuses (like the spell Bless in D&D) have some real potential to make a very skill-based game that still uses chance-based mechanics. I think a lot of it depends on how much any individual chance-based result actually matters. The less impactful any given bad result is, the less the chance-based mechanic is going to behave unpredictably in the long term. Getting screwed over by a bad RNG result is, in my mind, a result of poor encounter building, poor game balance, and overall poor design. And I think these last three are the real cause of the problem. Take away the random game elements and the game will still have problems; they'll just be different problems.[/quote] Baka, I'm pretty sure he means almost the exact same thing you and I agreed on earlier :P Predictability in the short-term, that is. Also, I disagree. I think that chance that can go to 0 and 100% is still as problematic as other kinds of chance in the instances where it does not go to one absolute. So even if the problems aren't as common, they are still very much present, and I see no reason to not just do away with them completely. [quote]Yes, but also no. And mostly no. Specific points are, like this short paragraph and the one below it, specific things in an opponent's argument that you disagree with. For specific reasons. Which you enumerate. Also, while examples aren't actually the meat of an argument, they're a really, really good way to help people understand what an argument actually is. Don't discount the use of examples. They kinda' rock.[/quote] +1 (also, kind of a given, but: they only rock if done well)[/quote]