News:

As a consequence of the forum being updated and repaired, the chatbox has been lost.
However, you can still come say hi on our Discord server!

Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - leaf

#21
What you fail to understand is that the djinn system would cease to be fun with the nerfs you're proposing. Djinn and summons were designed to work in a cadence, where the player expends an ammo-based system to steadily weaken themselves, with the promise of being able to pull off a strong attack later in the battle and recover their spent resources. After a certain point, it reaches an equilibrium where the player is getting back djinn at the same rate they're spending them. That is how this system was designed. If you make djinn take longer in recovery, this cadence is lost; the player is made weaker and weaker with no equilibrium in sight, until they finally run completely dry. Djinn would lose their intended use, and just become a watered down mechanic to fix a non-existent problem.

Did I say non-existent? Yes, I mean it. The loop you mentioned is end-game only. In GS1, you only have Flash available for the final battle. The designers knew it was broken. It exists so that players who are underleveled (or bad at the game) can still beat it. Remember that games are meant to be beaten, so it's okay for this kind of thing to exist sometimes. Can you use it to trivialize the Fusion Dragon? Yes. Does it make the battle take forever because you're doing practically no damage with this strat? Also yes. Is it fun? Not after the first 20 times you do it. There are sustainable ways to take down the Fusion Dragon that don't involve stalling out the battle. Players will naturally gravitate toward using the most damaging method available to them that can consistently win, and if they're underleveled to the point of having to rely on Flash+Granite spam, it's probably a good thing the option is there for them.

For future reference, there is actually a better loop in GS2 that makes use of lull and eddy:

Do stuff -> lull
Flash -> summon magaera -> unleash eddy -> summon mercury
Do stuff -> lull
...you get the idea. There's a few other variants, and it requires a very deliberate turn order to make the second turn work, but if your lull user is faster than the boss, you get to completely skip its turn half the time, and receive 10% damage the other half. In the absence of djinn interference moves (like djinn storm) or status (such as stun or instant death), it's effectively impossible to lose. Except... it turns out that Dullahan, Doom Dragon, Valukar, and even the Flame Dragons all have djinn interference attacks! Only Sentinel and Star Magician lack any form of djinn interference, both of which will take excruciatingly long to kill using this strat.

Naturally, this is boring as hell and requires intricate setup ahead of time, so most players don't do it. And why would they? They could summon rush instead and KO even Dullahan in 3-4 turns. There is no fight in the game that is difficult enough to warrant such a strategy, with the most difficult fights even having something specifically to dissuade it, so players will instead trend toward using a setup that inflicts more damage.

---

As for the other "problem" you mentioned, of players spamming summons in normal battles: This isn't a problem in and of itself, but rather a symptom of a different problem. Players use summons on normal battles not because it's "broken," but because they're lazy. They don't actually want to fight battles, so they use the quickest, most efficient, and most consistent method available to them so they don't have to. That last one is important. Fleeing battles is actually faster than summon rushing them - if it succeeds. Fleeing often fails, however, so players get into the habit of fighting everything they come across, which means they have to resort to other means to clear it quickly. If flee consistently worked, players wouldn't feel the need to summon rush to clear encounters.

Another thing to note is that this "broken" strat involves the monotony of going into the djinn menu after every single battle to set up for the next one. If the player is willing to go to such extents to circumvent the expected gameplay pattern, may as well let them. Even if you did double recovery time, players would just shift to using djinn unleashes to kill enemies and then set them back after battle, which is just as sustainable as summon rushing, albeit slightly more involved and may not one-round.

---

As for your multiple health bar solution... this is effectively identical to simply reducing the percent HP modifier on summons. If you wanted to split a boss's health bar into two, it would be equivalent to halving the percent HP modifier. May as well cut to the chase and reduce the HP percent damage itself, rather than trying to do some fancy workaround for bosses.

---

And finally, the HP/PP cost proposal: this is highly problematic. Keeping psynergy and summon resources distinct is important for preserving both of their usefulness. If summons cost PP, it would just crowd out psynergy, rather than meaningfully limit summons. And making it cost HP would just feel bad. The cost would either be so low that you wonder why it's there in the first place, or it would be so high that you'd frequently kill yourself when trying to use it in a boss fight. There's no middle ground.

---

@Sala: I completely disagree with making multi-elemental summons more expensive. They're already weaker per djinni used than their mono-elemental counterparts. All of the multi-elementals of 6 cost or lower are pretty well balanced imo. It's only the 7+ djinn summons that are problematic, since they give a disproportionate amount of burst damage for summon rushing the bonus bosses. Essentially, these summons only exist to be abused by summon rushing, while the 6 and below summons are all plenty feasible for a conventional party to make use of. Even if they were made more expensive, it still wouldn't solve the issue of how much burst they can put out.
#22
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
23, July, 2017, 12:47:45 PM
...why didn't you just give ivan whirlwind as in innate psynergy?
#23
Feedback / Re: Clan Requests
23, June, 2017, 07:19:13 PM
Yeah it basically just affects what name color you want
#24
Introductions / Re: I'm new, please be gentle
23, June, 2017, 02:45:21 AM
That title... are we talking about joining a forum or your first time having sex?

Joke's aside, welcome. We don't have as much going on here as we used to, but there's one or two active projects still. Enjoy your time here.
#25
Open Discussion / Re: You are beautiful
22, June, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
Wow, this topic even brought atrius back from the dead

(P.S. You messed up the embed link. It was supposed to be a .gif extension but you grabbed the .wepb.)

[spoiler=The image atrius meant to post]
[/spoiler]
#26
Open Discussion / Re: You are beautiful
22, June, 2017, 03:04:08 PM
Did someone say

A E S T H E T I C
#27
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
15, June, 2017, 03:43:36 PM
QuoteThat said, unless the recent changes to the PP formula had that much of an impact to those early djinn.

Honestly it wouldn't be surprising if suddenly inflicting an extra 10-15 damage broke some early fights. Unlike some games, characters in GS do not get significantly more powerful with levels, so being underleveled shouldn't change much. However, the combination of being underleveled plus the extra damage the djinni puts out, might be enough to put it over the edge. Bpat's party was probably ~10 HP under where you expect them to be, so in tandem with attacks doing another 10-15 damage from the maxPP bonus, that could easily hit a kill breakpoint.
#28
Open Discussion / Re: You are beautiful
15, June, 2017, 03:36:48 PM
My favorite part is how the name field cuts off not even halfway through the name
#29
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
12, June, 2017, 12:00:25 AM
Gonna agree with role that foes with 3+ turns pretty much nullify ground's existence. At 2 turns, you're still cutting out a significant amount of damage by tying up one of them, but at three turns it's functionally a 33% damage reduction... which is just plain inferior to using a barrier djinni.

Multiple foes also gives another lever for balancing mages; they wouldn't need their big AOEs to be hitting for the same damage as unleashes to keep up in boss fights if AOE actually had a purpose there.
#30
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
07, June, 2017, 06:40:15 PM
Rather than mess with every ability's base power, couldn't you just make the modifier something like...

MaxPP/8 - 12

That breaks even at 96 PP, thus leaving early game basically as is (slightly nerfed for warriors). Just making it part of the formula makes it so you don't have to do nearly as much grunt work.
#31
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
05, May, 2017, 03:06:51 PM
The djinni you use shouldn't have an effect on getting a drop. However, either your elemental level or epow could (I forget which).
#32
Project List / Re: [RELEASE] Golden Sun Reloaded
03, May, 2017, 02:10:21 PM
The enemy group that appears is based on your timing from system on to when you load in. If your timing isn't frame perfect, you won't get the same group every time. What's more, enemy groups may have been edited in Cal's hack, so even if your timing *is* frame perfect, it's possible that the enemy group that used to be Magicore+Vile Dirge is now Magicore x2.

I think the former is a lot more likely, though. You're consistently using one timing, but it's not the same timing you used before.
#33
Introductions / Re: Hello
19, April, 2017, 12:04:44 PM
Remember the sprite limit exists. You can only have up to 6 small enemies on screen at once, and medium enemies count as two small enemies. This isn't a game balance limit, but rather a hardware limit.
#34
Introductions / Re: Hello
18, April, 2017, 08:07:24 PM
I suspect axe unleash rate would be fine if it was on par with the other weapons, and a 10% penalty on AOE unleashes sounds pretty light; it'll prob bounce around 20% most of the time. Other than that, it sounds like a good starting point to me. You'll probably run into some things that end up needing to be rebalanced when you realize something is too strong/too weak, but you've gotta start somewhere.

edit: Actually, for the added damage percentages, you may want to scale it up throughout the game. Axes might start at 20-25%, then scale up to 30 or 35% shortly before the multiplier switch. Maces/LBs might start at 30%, scaling up to 50% shortly before the multiplier switch. This more closely reflects how GS added damage unleashes usually scale, and keeps added damage from being too strong in the early game. In vanilla GS, base damage unleashes usually scale from 30-50% of the weapon's Atk over the course of the game.
#35
Introductions / Re: Hello
18, April, 2017, 01:01:28 AM
The reason I suggest keeping maces/LBs added damage for most of the game is because mage-type characters have innately lower Atk, so they don't get as much out of multipliers. So if you give these weapons multipliers on par with the other weapons, warriors will use them fine, but they'll actually be weaker in the hands of a mage. If you give them multipliers stronger than other weapons, then warriors will just say "thanks for the new weapon" and mages will only get to use them as hand-me-downs. However, if you give them added damage on par with the damage output of warrior multipliers, it ends up being a strong option for both warriors *and* mages.
#36
Introductions / Re: Hello
17, April, 2017, 07:46:33 PM
You could always mix and match - you could design a weapon to have a strong unleash in the hands of a capable fighter by giving it a multiplier, or you could design a weapon to bring parity even to weaker party members. I'd say that generally mace and LB unleashes should be added damage for most of the game, while weapon types that are dedicated to warrior-type characters could feature more multipliers (mostly long swords; axes would have to use weaker multipliers or just do added damage to be balanced). Alternatively, if you want a mace/LB to be ahead of the curve when you obtain it, you could give it a multiplier so that warrior classes can utilize it better, giving it to a mage as a hand-me-down later. You don't have to totally switch over to one or the other at any point, either; you can have items coexist in the same space, some with multipliers and some with added damage, sometimes with a new weapon having added damage despite the previous one using a multiplier.

Also, about dark dawn: DD still had a lot of added damage unleashes afaik, it's just that since every weapon got multiple unleashes, and unleashes were shared across the game, the chances of having a multiplier were much higher.
#37
Introductions / Re: Hello
17, April, 2017, 02:13:58 PM
Add mods are frequently stronger than multipliers early on. Recall that damage is calculated as:

(Atk - Def)/2 * MultMod + AddMod

Thus, an AddMod of 30 is equivalent to having +60 Atk. The worth of a MultMod is dependent both on the modifier and the difference between Atk and Def. Suffice it to say that even a 2x multiplier will be weaker than a +30 AddMod until the difference between Atk and Def exceeds 60.

What's more, AddMods are beneficial in that they flatten out the damage curve between different characters; even relatively low Atk stats can make use of AddMods effectively. This is why Cannon is such a good djinni early on, and why even Sheba can do insane damage with it. Multipliers are inherently best on whoever has the highest raw Atk stat, while AddMods can be effective on anyone.
#38
QuoteI have had a thought process through this: I will try to implement both patches; intellect and PP multipling formula. Where I nerf the stat growth of intellect by a 20% and I tweak the multiplier by 1*(max PP/1536) so that the multiplier also gets a nerf and it does not progress quadratically as Rolina and Leaf stated.

???

You don't hit anywhere close to 1500 PP by endgame. That formula is going to result in substantially lower damage dealt throughout the game. Did you perhaps mean to type 1 + (maxPP/1536)?
#39
Introductions / Re: Hello
16, April, 2017, 05:09:39 AM
I see you went with nerfing the other items down and bumping up the damage on clothos so you don't have to give it such a ridiculous amount of PP. Seems like a good approach. The damage distributions look pretty reasonable, but HP still feels undertuned. PP is probably fine.

HP values could probably be set via a formula like... HP = 1.4 * Int, and break formula at endgame. Also, the rusty staff weapons seem to have extremely low Atk for some reason, and are pretty much wholly outclassed by ankhs as they are; a small bump to their Atk would remedy this.

Early eastern sea
Grevious Mace: 84 Atk, 24 -> 28 HP, 20 Int

Lemuria
Thanatos Mace: 108 Atk, 31 -> 39 HP, 28 Int
Dracomace: 91 -> 99 Atk, 77 Int, 12 Power
Fireman's Pole: 110 Atk, 64 Int, 32 PP [unchanged - just here for reference]

Reunion
Wicked Mace: 133 Atk, 43 -> 50 HP, 36 Int
Goblin's Rod: 108 -> 117 Atk, 90 Int, 15 Power
Meditation Rod: 127 Atk, 80 Int, 40 PP [unchanged - just here for reference]

Endgame
Vajra Mace: 161 Atk, 48 -> 60 HP, 40 Int [breaks formula, uses 1.5*Int]
Lachesis Rule: 147 Int, 118 Int, 25 Power [unchanged - just here for reference]
Clotho's Distaff: 156 Atk, 96 Int, 48 PP [unchanged - just here for reference]

I consider this pretty much the minimum you can set the HP values to and expect them to feel good. However, I actually think you could push it a lot further. Something more like... HP = 1.8*Int. With this setting, it might look like Maces outclass other mage weapons at first glance, but that's because Maces are hybrid weapons that shift a mage toward being a warrior; the drastically lower Int means they're not really suitable for what a mage wants to accomplish. As such, it's more appropriate to compare them with other warrior weapons, and see if the health is balanced with those.

Early eastern sea
Grevious Mace: 84 Atk, 24 -> 36 HP, 20 Int
Robber's Blade: 106 Atk [unchanged - listed for comparison]

Lemuria
Thanatos Mace: 108 Atk, 31 -> 50 HP, 28 Int
Hestia Blade: 127 Atk [unchanged - listed for comparison]

Reunion
Wicked Mace: 133 Atk, 43 -> 64 HP, 36 Int
[Gaia Blade is too far behind the curve to be a suitable comparison point]

Endgame
Vajra Mace: 161 Atk, 48 -> 80 HP, 40 Int [breaks formula, uses 2*Int]
Sol Blade: 180 Atk, Earth [unchanged - listed for comparison]

With the way you have the rest of the items set up, I don't think I'd go all the way to 108 like I did before, but it can still give a pretty good chunk of health. The reason I'm so willing to risk overtuning HP amounts is because of the prevalence of healing. A character's effective HP during a boss fight is many times higher than their actual HP bar, and the same holds true of even just standard wandering, as well. Since HP is not multiplicative with itself, it actually does relatively little to a character's overall durability, and is mainly useful to prevent being one-rounded. If you can't look at an HP increase and say "yeah, that looks pretty meaty," it's probably not enough.
#40
Introductions / Re: Hello
15, April, 2017, 06:59:12 PM
I'd probably place the HP bonus for maces somewhere in the low 70s at JLH, and just under 50 at poseidon. The first mace in the game should prob give about 10. That should give you some decent points to scale from. Endgame GS1 would prob be about 50 as well. That may sound like it's scaling too much at endgame, but remember that endgame items tend to have a massive power spike in TLA, and that GS1 endgame power tends to be about equal to the end of the eastern sea in TLA.

As for the character stats, don't forget that class bonuses are a thing. The bulk of character differentiation comes from classes and equipment. Even if two characters have very similar base stats, having a 160% modifier for a stat on one but only 130% on the other is going to create a huge disparity between their observed stats.

edit: I think +12 agility for the end tier LB is prob fine on that scale, maybe drop it down to +10. I was thinking about agility values post-class bonus when I mentioned the average being 80-100.