[project1dev] Re: almost completely on topic... :P

  • From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:30:05 -0700

Resource management + attrition need to be balanced, I think every
game at least tries to do this, but doesn't always succeed.

Dragon Quest for example is way biased towards attrition, having to
conserve mp in dungeons against ranbats and save your resources for
the bosses/tough enemies.  This is the oldschool style of rpgs, and is
kinda boring compared to what is possible now.

A game like Kingdom Hearts is much more biased towards short term
management, since everything you kill regenerates bits of hp and mp,
so you can pretty much pump out all of your mana in one fight.  I
understand that the player can procure a bit of a thrill by being deep
in a dungeon with almost no mana or hp left, but this isn't as fun as
being able to have many options in every fight you enter, imo.

Getting rid of ranbats is the first goal which we have already done,
but beyond that, you really just need small but clever tweaks to take
care of regen, such as hp/mp restoration spots placed through
dungeons, an attribute (such as Guts or Stamina) that restores a tiny
bit of hp/mp per fight, gear that gives you regen per step, or other
things.

A game I really enjoyed gave you items that would heal you and never
disappear, but you could only use them every 120 seconds or so (or
about 500 steps in game).  Basically it was an item with a cooldown
that never disappeared.

In short, I agree with Kent (more meaningful battles, and easier regeneration)

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Many traditional RPGs have finite non-regenerating resources that are
> restored only at particular points (such as inns, etc.). Resource management
> is of long-term relevance, but rarely relevant within a single regular
> combat. This allows for less challenging battles to have meaningful
> consequences (consumption of resources), but often encourages a
> (subjectively) boring degree of resource conservation (eg: magic-users who
> avoid using any magic at all if they can help it)
>
> In RPGs with rapidly regenerating (but smaller) resource pools, resource
> management is of short-term relevance only. This may allow for greater
> tactical depth within a single combat since the player can be expected to
> use a range of abilities, rather than conserve them, and running dry during
> a single fight is plausible and must be managed. However, if resources
> regenerate between battles, any fight which does not present a reasonable
> chance of outright defeating the player is effectively just taking up time.
> Attrition is not possible. Moreover, I think you lose a significant degree
> of dramatic tension that can come from being deep in dangerous territory,
> and running low on resources. In such a system, no matter how many battles
> you slog through, you're still effectively as fresh as when you set out.
>
> Is it possible to design an RPG where resource management is relevant both
> in the short-term and long-term? Where excessive conservatism is not
> encouraged, but moderate-difficulty battles are not made irrelevant?
>
> What are some of your opinions are on the subject of resource management and
> attrition in RPGs (or even more generally)? How do you feel about systems
> with/without significant attrition? Are there any games that you think have
> done it unusually well?"
>
>
> More as well as other people responding at...
> http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=533360

Other related posts: