Someone Figure Out a Battle System

[N3B]

A possible method is the way Note used in his CTBA, but i didn't like that too well because it took so bloody long for one battle.

i'm still working on figuring out the easiest, most efficient battle method, everything else i basically have fine.

[N3B]

actually, now that i think of it, the one outlined in OS 1.0 is about the best i can come up with. only thing i can figure is to change the way items work. Have potions, herbs, whatever reduce the number of enemy attacks by a certain number (potion would nullify 2 attacks, soothing herbs'd nullify 5 or something).

then, that could be the "healing" aspect. of course, you'd have to specify that you used them in the post to clarify.

Then we can make a Colliseum in which members can go to officially duel, where we can make that turn-based sort of like Note's thing.

[Draxas]

I have to admit, the "one attack per post" battle system is clunky and impractical, but it does give the most detailed system...

Considering our use of skills, and ability to select multiple spells, I would suggest a modified version of said system. Simply declare which actions you would like to use beforehand, up to a limit of your choosing. The monsters do the same. When that limit is reached, the next set of actions is chosen. This allows battles to range from either "auto-battles," where all your attacks are decided in advance, to "one attack per post" battles, where you have the most control if you choose.

Example: Draxas (500 HP), armed with spell runes for firestorm (100), blizzard (75), and thunderbolt (90), and possessing the skill "Steal," vs. Salamander (500 HP), a previously unknown fire elemental monster with an attack power of 50.

Draxas declares his first 4 moves of the battle right at the start: Steal, F.Storm, T.Bolt, Blizzard, in that order. The idea of this combo is to test the weakness of a monster never encountered before.

The first move steals an item of the Overseer's choosing. The other 3 inflict damage respectively: 0 (Salamander is immune to fire), 90 (S. is neutral against lightning), and 150 (S. is weak to ice). Each move is countered by the Salamander, inflicting 50 damage each.

This leaves Draxas with 300 HP, and the Salamander with 260.

Because the monster's weakness is now known, Draxas declares his intent to use Blizzard until his foe dies. As always, the Salamander will counter each turn.

This means it will take Draxas 2 more turns to destroy the Salamander (150 per turn). The Salamander will likewise inflict 100 more damage before it perishes.

Final Battle stats:

Draxas (200/500 HP) is victorious!
Salamander (0/500 HP) is slain!

So what do you think? Feasible?

[N3B]

Yeah, my only real problem with the "limit" and "single" styles is that it takes a much longer time to do. I guess, yeah, it is less math for the user to use, and would then nullify errors in the mathematical aspect of the battle.

My thing is that you'd then have to wait for an overlord to post the results, and, i am not always online. Draxas, i believe you, of my pre-set overlords, are the one most online, and would then end up doing most of the Overlord calculations. But, the "limit" you example'd would work better than the individual attack.

We could make it sort of like in most turn-based RPG's, where you equip 3 runes, and a weapon, and you can then choose from a action command, listed in your profile. You could then, say, do anything from: Attack, Thunder, Fist of Wind, Ice Storm, Defend, Thieve, Last Berserk, Item, Skill _______, and Run.

Last Berserk is just what it means in FF:TA, when you get below x amount of health, your damage by magic and attack is multiplied by 2, or 1.5, or whatever number we so choose.

But i can see that method working out. There'd still be some math with: "subtracting enemy attack from own defense", and "subtract enemy damage per 4 attacks from own health."

If we, the overlords, so chose, we could even act as the monster and select from a range of actions between: Defend, Attack, Run, and a Magic. Of course, we'd be nice in most cases and not constantly use the same uber attack.

This has also been brought to my mind; limiting magic use. Rather than having MP, we just set a limit to how many times a rune can be used per battle. strong can be used less, weak can be used more. And since (if we are using it) we'd be using the action command window, you'd still have an attack to use.

walla, i think this could work, with some refining.

[N3B]

i've been thinking, and the only real downside to this is that it's harder for a user to RP the battle, since they really don't know what the enemy will do. We could just make all monsters have a counterattack by default, but that'd get boring after a while.

So, for those of us who'd want to RP a little, this might not work too well. Since, by natural means, in a real battle, the enemy wouldn't just sit there the whole time. And, since it goes by rounds, you'd only really get to act out the first round, and then you still wouldn't know what the enemy was doing, so it'd be sort of bland.

Best i can figure is this; post your 4 moves, wait until the monster does its 4, and then post your battle after that, and, if it continues, post your next 4 moves at the end, then after the monster's done it's 4, you RP the battle out more. If, you happen to kill it in, say, round 3 of 4, of the first round, the Overlord will post rounds 1, 2, and then your final attack of round 4. You then get to RP out the thing, and then continue through the dungeon or what not.

Now, that we've established a turn-based RPG, this will enable agility to be thrown into the mix. whoever has higher agility gets to attack first for each round.

[Draxas]

I rather like the battle system you set forth. However, I saw your description of Long Jab, and that's an incredibly cheap skill. Do you realize that by just using that 4 times in a row, the Rat would have been toast with no resistance? And then it would have been recharged for another 4 uses in the next fight... Cheap. I hope it was just an example.

Profilic?

[N3B]

of course. it goes to show variations in skills and such.

and profilic is a made-up word of mine, that means profile-related.

hopefully people are smart enough to figure out what it means without me actually going about explaining it.