Still makes more sense. From what I gather, you're saying "your power growth is exponential" which is silly. It should be logarithmic.
| |
No its very good. Because just take a few minutes to think about it. Would you rather take 5 hours to gain 1 level and get +5 stats, or take 5 hours to gain 1 level and gain +100 stats? Plus, it also gets the game going alot faster, and theres no real dull points, because after a few hours of leveling, your on to the next part. While it would take alot more levels to go on in much of other games.
| |
But Mario wasnt really an RPG, and yes technically he did, when he got Firepower, even tho he could lose it, he still got more power than he had in previous times.
| |
So he doesn't level up because he doesn't need to make up for other major gameplay flaws such as, you know, no gameplay.
Got it. | |
Garthor wrote:
So he doesn't level up because he doesn't need to make up for other major gameplay flaws such as, you know, no gameplay. I never said that. I said that technically he does just no one thinks of it that way. Think about it, suddenly your able to shoot fireballs, Id call that an advancement, and when you advance you in a way level up. | |
Garthor wrote:
Why even have levels? It serves no purpose but to waste time. Mario didn't need to level up. Super Mario RPG? | |
Yes, however strength-powered missile weapons have definite limitations that RPGs overlook as well as strengths. English (actually generally Welsh....) longbowmen generally trained their whole life with the weapon. Additionally, they for military purposes, they trained to fire in volleys, not at individual targets. (Shorter bows are generally used for hunting.) While a longbow could indeed kill at longer ranges than shorter staved bows, such missile fire was largely inefective against better armored forces. However, the *fear* of casualties was often sufficient to disrupt advancing troops, especially footmen. Likewise, lesser armored combatants would have to stop to utilize shields (which will completely protect against such fire if utilized properly- see Roman shield formations), thus slowing them and making them vey vulnerable to cavalry.
In terms of closer, small scale battles, a bow is probably a very poor choice (as are many traditional RPG weapons...). For one thing, a bow generally can not be kept strung constantly. This means the archer would have to take time to string the bow before any real fighting. Second, a bow is well nigh useless at closer ranges. This is why most historical archers usually carried some sort of blade, just in case infantry got too close (IE they hadn't fled in time). Another problem is it takes a fairly accurate shot to land a fatal or crippling blow, especially against a moving target. Especially when that target is moving to kill the archer and will close after 1-2 shots. The archer is realistically better off fleeing. Nonetheless, having a master marksman needing to put 5+ arrows into a deer (or unarmored person) is absurd. | |
AH, this legendary "Haven Seed", again! I have heard of such myths since Ye Olden Days of DUNG. heh
No, some very good comments, actually. As to the effectiveness of weaponry, it is my understanding that their effect turns on 3 factors: Leverage, Mass, and Cutting Surface. Greater leverage usually implies a greater amplification of force and is often combined with slight increases in mass. Examples of high leverage/mass weapons are clubs, maces and other bludgeoning instruments. Such weapons rely on concussive force and are relatively unaffected by edge deflecting armor designs but are slowed by sufficient padding and kinetic deflection. Blows from such weapons are most deadly when aimed to the human head or even torso, but can cripple limbs such that great accuracy is not needed. High cutting surface weapons are generally seen as blades, particulary effective are curved ones (which maximize cutting surface throughout the blow). These instruments, as you accurately summarized, rely on slicing motions that split softer tissues and small bones, severing nerves, blood vessels, and the like. Armor (such as curved rings or shaped plates) which deflects the cutting edge is most effective against such attacks, since they usually lack the mass to cause much secondary damage. For this reason, accuracy and skill is more necessary with these weapons than with hafted weapons. Lower amounts of cutting surface are typically coupled with greater amounts of mass or focused leverage. Two major variants exist. Larger cutting areas combined with higher mass results in one of the oldest and simplest weapons man has known- the axe. Such weapons focuse the mass of the head into a cutting edge and are very difficult to defend against. Such weapons require minimal training to be effective and are better at penetrating armor than either blunt instruments or low mass edged weapons. Fortunately for potential victims, such weapons may also somewhat slowed by any type of armor (deflective armor helps re-direct the blow and padding will help to avoid deeper wounds). Poleaxes are an extreme combination of mass and leverage, but can also function as piercing weapons, making them versatile, indeed! Smaller cutting surfaces are seen in piercing weapons such as spears and arrows. Such weapons concentrate their mass and force into a very small areas. Such weapons can indeed be most deadly, but require more training as accuracy is very important. Spears offer the additional advantage of reach from behind a shield. Arrows and bolts also rely on a small cutting area to mass principle to puncture targets. Deflective armor is most useful against such attacks, as are shields. Some blades also rely on this principal (notably fencing blades), but their minimal mass means that they are deadly when used by a trained armsman against a lightly or unarmored foe but useless once a certain armor threshold is reached (thick canvas, for example will deflect a foil). An often overlooked factor of weaponry in RPGs is that most weapons and armor develop in response to each other, and you would rarely see *all* types present in a given era. To me it is absurd to see a khopsh (a weapon found in early Mideast cultures) contemporaneous with a fully articulated plated armor (found as late as the 1600s). Likewise , many weapons and armor are largely ceremonial, such as the kriss or the athame, and no sane person would ever carry them into a full fledged battle. So pick an era and stick with it;-) | |
Levels are there because most designers are lazy/uncreative/don't know any better and so copy Gary Gygax's D&D Level/HP model. Which is funny, because it originally developed for Chainmail, a miniature wargame. I guess, he thought levels were a good way to represent varying troop grades. As it turns out its a horribly unrealistic mechanic for either battle simulation or role-playing.
At least spell-memorization never stuck with any other systems, as that is the most unplayable magic system I have ever seen.... | |
So much writing...anyway, in RPGs, I like flexibility; you COULD go straight into a fight, but you could also sneak around the back and get to the target a differant way. I've only ever seen that option ONCE and that was Final Fantasy 7, PS1.
Next, exploring a world with interesting histories, people, plantlife...occasionally monsters. Then, storyline. Its GOT to have a good story, or evryone, not just me, loses interest. I personally have ben working on the BACKGROUND for a game for about 2 years now. How? When I was 5, like a lot of kids, I made up a lotta stuff. Now, I decided to revisit these things and improve on them. I noticed I had made up a lot of people, but there is NO way they could live in the real world. What did I do? Made a little world for them. Then filled it with interesting things. Then, persuaded by my best friend, wrote it all down into 3 books. Im still working on it, and maybe I can turn it into a real game. Not BYOND, I mean a PROPER game, that you go out into the shops and buy. My point? You cant make an RPG game in 5 minutes. Whether its 30 minutes, or 2 years+ like me, its just not possible. So...in imaginary worlds and the real world alike, wars and fights only occur when its necerssary. The end You have just read the longest thing I've written on a PC without getting bored. Bye Lyra04 PS, good luck on your game if thats why you wanted this info from evryone. | |
No, but most are.
Levelling is a convention (and a poor one at that) that is often used instead of planning out character development. After all, why even use "levels"? For most the answer is because it's easy and what everyone else does. Sounds pretty lazy, huh? | |
Jmurph wrote:
why even use "levels"? For most the answer is because it's easy and what everyone else does. Sounds pretty lazy, huh? Why breathe air? Everyone else does, you're just too lazy to think of something new. Or maybe people use levels because the system works. It'd be pretty hard to make a computer game without assigning numbers to stats. | |
The point is that levels are an artifical way to make it easier to kill monsters, while at the same time making monsters harder to kill. Why even increase your strength? Why not simply increase the strength of the monsters very slowly (or even decrease them over time, if you want the game to be balanced like that). The only possible answer is that the person who designed the game intended for you to spend lots of time performing menial tasks to get on to the next area, or that it's all a Pavlovian experiment (*ding* you level up! *drool*).
If you're talking about gaining game-altering abilities, there is surely a better way of doing it, isn't there? However, most levelling up is limited to increasing a few numbers. | |
I really think I said that quit plainly. Think about lets say...DWQ. Forever, you are gaining levels of +1 - +20(I think max, I never really played too much) per level. Yes, there are class changes, but thats just annoying, continually changing class just to get more level ups, but at the same time, you lose half your stats, so half your levels are waists. Now while on Slime Journey, as you progress through the game, your character efectivly changes colors, letting his level ups more effective. Now while Blue is +1 - +10 or so, Red could be +5 - +20. And then Yellow is like +20 - +40 etc. Of course, these arent the real vaules, but I'm giving an example. Instead of always class changing every 50 levels (Which take forever I might add) you gain better and better levels as you play on. Now I will add Class Changing in SJ2, but it effectivly wont basically start you over, it will just reset your Job level. Effectivly, as you level, you get better levels, and you arent getting the same, useless dull levels as the game goes on. I was playing DWQ a while ago, and I was stuffed on the same monsters for DAYS on end! Because my levesl gave me nothing but +1s and +2s. It was ridicoulous! Its unnessisary, and by effectivly increasing levels, you can get levels more worth it, and maybe half - the same ammount of time. Its just plain logic.