Golden Sun: Adept Battle Arena

[Formina]

Hi all!

I'd like to share my project I've been working on for the last couple of weeks or so. (Started on the 22nd May, 2014). It's a small flash game aiming to recreate the original game as close as possible in terms of look and feel. It looks like there have been other members working on similar things throughout the years, and this project of mine has already been through several iterations itself. You can find some previous screenshots here (Spanning 2006-2011): http://imgur.com/a/AYP2L (The main topic for the previous versions is on Golden Sunrise if you want to check it out!)

The main focus of the game is competitive Multiplayer, so you'll be able to socialise and battle other players in real time.

Currently I have a small tech demo demonstrating a basic battle system right now. (The only commands that work currently are Attack and Psynergy) You can check it out here: https://db.tt/R4Jfs9wQ. Controls are:
Z = A Button
X = B Button
A = L Button
S = R Button
Arrow Keys = D-Pad

There will be regular updates as this is a fresh project. I have programmed multiplayer games before (including a prior version of Adept Battle Arena), but I have not done networking in Flash, so it will be somewhat of a challenge.

Now, onto the scope / features / goals:

The main goal of this project is to create an authentic looking Golden Sun Battle system that you can battle other parties (controlled by other players) in real time.

On balance / perceived balanced issues: There will be some formulas and mechanics that may need to be re-balanced to make multiplayer more fun and encourage new strategies that weren't possible in the original games. Constructive feedback and theorycrafting on balance issues are welcome, but some things may be set in stone and/or may be difficult to judge until people actually try them out.

Now, the main proposed differences between the original games and my project and the reasoning behind them. Nothing is set in stone just yet. (Feedback is welcome  )
- No summons in PvP Reason: Programming time constraints (difficult to program), unsure of the effectiveness of summon rushing - I want to discourage this.
- Djinn will be given a yet-to-be-determined recharge timer on use Reason: They will set back automatically. You will lose the passive bonus but not the class bonus while they are recharging.
- You can have more than one of each character Reason: To encourage unique team set ups. Want 4 Jupiter adepts? Go for it!
- 2 turns per round: Reason: To make the defend option more attractive and encourage more strategies. In the original game, Defend is pretty lackluster. Should also result in quicker battles.
- Remove the cap of 200 on Elemental Power, new caster items will boost Elemental Power : Reason: To make spell casting more powerful and a viable option to build a team around.
- Overall, health will probably be increased Reason: Avoid people getting one shot from the proposed changes.
- Items will be available, on an X-used per battle basis Reason: Consumables should be a viable, limited PP-less way of dealing damage or healing, but they will have a set number of uses per battle to prevent spamming. Example: You can buy a herb pouch from the shop. 5 Uses, recharges after each battle.
- There will be no reviving in PvP battles. Reason: To prevent battles from going on for a long time.
- Certain healing spells will be nerfed Reason: Their PP to Healing ratio is too damn high!
- No genderlocked Classes, Adepts will have standardized statistics for each Element Reason: Equality for everyone. You will be able to make a Fire Adept a Guard or Flame User, regardless of gender.

There will be a PvP Leaderboard of course. For awesome bragging rights. Who can make the most awesome party? ^^

So, that's all I can think of for now. There will probably be other things and issues that crop up along the way, but it'll be a fun journey! Again, the main focus is a balanced, fun multiplayer battle game, trying to stay close to the original games, but with modifications done as necessary. But ideally, I want there to be social aspects, perhaps PvE battles against cool and unique bosses (To earn Gold, Djinn and Items), or just play some minigames with your fellow Adepts to blow off some steam. Customized overworld sprites and portraits will be ideal as well, so you can be unique. Check out the demo if you haven't already!

How can you help?
If you're talented in Sprite Ripping, let me know. I could always use a hand (particulary when it comes to Psynergy effects!)
If you're good with math, feel free to provide some constructive and well thought out balance feedback and concerns.
If you're good with Programming, let me know and we can talk some C++ (I can't do assembly). XD
Otherwise, play and enjoy the game, and report bugs and provide feedback!

Thank you for reading and let me know what you think!

[Luna_blade]

 :!:EDIT

How can you help?
If you're talented in Sprite Ripping, let me know. I could always use a hand (particulary when it comes to Psynergy effects!)

For animations look here: http://www.spriters-resource.com/game_boy_advance/gs2/ They got quite a few.

Also added the purple one now, in a handy .zip.
And the red one also in a .zip. Thank Teawater for correcting me back there.

[Daddy Poi's Oily Gorillas]

The red crystal is 8 frames, not 7.

0300122C = global_frame_counter (Doesn't seem to be the Game Timer itself, but seems to count up like one.)

The red crystal's frame is chosen by doing (global_frame_counter & 7)

The pixel data for the red crystal is at 0812996C in VBA's memory viewer.

If you're talented in Sprite Ripping, let me know. I could always use a hand (particulary when it comes to Psynergy effects!)

Don't forget about the debug function for frame pausing.

03001238:01

Start+Select, I believe it was... for pausing frames... and button presses to advance them. Start to unpause frames.

[Aile~♥]

Here's a thought: Instead of giving everyone two turns, you could modify the Defend command itself.

Here are some ideas:
— Defend could reduce damage by 60% (instead of 50%).
— Defend could grant immunity to harmful secondary effects and HP/PP drain effects (may deal double damage, may deal triple damage, may multiply damage by 1, 2, or 3, may ignore 50% of defense, ignore defense, criticals, poison, paralyze, delude, sleep, haunt, death curse, instant death, may drain HP from target, recover 50% of damage to HP, may drain PP from target, recover 10% of damage to PP, Lose 10% of PP, reduce Attack/Defense/Resistance/Agility, etc. (What few direct PP damage abilities there are would still apply. Note that the Psy Drain spell is not an example of such an ability.)) while active.
— Additionally, you might decide to have a Defending character regain 3% (for example) of their max PP for every hit taken while Defending.

[Luna_blade]

The red crystal is 8 frames, not 7.

0300122C = global_frame_counter (Doesn't seem to be the Game Timer itself, but seems to count up like one.)

The red crystal's frame is chosen by doing (global_frame_counter & 7)

The pixel data for the red crystal is at 0812996C in VBA's memory viewer.

Don't forget about the debug function for frame pausing.

Start+Select, I believe it was... for pausing frames... and button presses to advance them. Start to unpause frames.

Oops... I thought it was good. Yes I use the next frame function, it's really convenient.

[leaf]

Okay... here's my first question: What will be the standardized level for pvp?

40? 60? 99? You could make cases for any of these. 40 is the typical endgame level of tla before bonus dungeons. 60 is the typical endgame level after bonus battles and gets you access to all psynergy (personally, this would be my pick, since the stats aren't getting ridiculous yet). 99 is the max possible level, but not one most people will get to over the course of the game without some serious grinding. Assuming we want all psynergy to be usable, that takes out 40, but the difference between combat at lv60 and combat at lv99 is still significant.

Regardless of the level chosen, I think giving everyone two turns is highly excessive, especially since there's no revival. What's more, I find it odd you say you want to "discourage" summon rushing when summons don't even exist in your proposed game. I think you would actually be surprised at how balanced summons could be in pvp, since both sides have access to the protective djinn.

I've done some theorycrafting about GS pvp in the past, assuming a 3v3 link battle format. You can read it here. Of course, we have the ability to modify certain things about the game to create better balance, but I think most of the issues can be solved by number tweaks rather than outright removing options or creating drastic gameplay alterations.

[Lord Wolfram]

How can you help?

If you're good with math, feel free to provide some constructive and well thought out balance feedback and concerns.
If you're good with Programming, let me know and we can talk some C++ (I can't do assembly). XD
Otherwise, play and enjoy the game, and report bugs and provide feedback!

Math:Well I can try to give you my aid. Tell What I need to do!
Programming:Can't say I am good At it More like Novice but If I success It will be A good training.

[Formina]

Thank you all for the responses!

@Luna_Blade,
Thank you for the rips, in the process of putting them in now. I took a look at the link you gave me and unfortunately they are lacking a lot of the low level Psynergy, such as Flare, Plasma, etc. I can rip these myself (by recording an video of the game playing with layers turned off) but if there is a better way let me know.

@JamietheFlameUser
Interesting idea. I was possibly thinking of adding in different variations of Defend (Defend Psynergy) - so you could have the base Defend that costed no PP, and defensive psynergy. Defensive Psynergy could be stuff like...:

Power Block - Jupiter Psynergy - Block up to 90% of all incoming damage. 25% of the damage blocked comes off PP. Effect does not trigger if you don't have enough PP.
Counter Attack - Fire Psynergy - Block 50% damage. Counter all hits with a physical attack. 8 PP.
etc.

@Leaf
Great read for your link, thank you! That is a good question, and one that i'm not sure of yet. I'm leaning towards level 60 being the maximum level for end game as well. However, you won't be starting at this level - I want there to be leveling up and adventuring as part of the game (and as such, will be focusing on low-level stuff first).

Regarding 2 turns, my logic was that by giving everyone two turns, they have a few more options (not including utility Psynergy such as Impact, Sleep, etc):

1) Deal damage twice (double damage output)
2) Heal twice (double healing)
3) Defend once, heal or damage once (50% reduction + damage or healing)

Thus giving a bigger choice to the player, and making defense a viable option as you don't lose your entire turn to get 50% reduction. If player A attacked twice and player B was defending, player B would only take half damage, and if player B attacked player A, he would take full damage and thus, take an equivalent amount of damage. Player A would have expended twice the PP though if he was casting Psynergy.

Thoughts?

About summon rushing: Sorry, it was like 12:30am when I wrote the reason. What I meant to say was that I wanted to discourage summon rushing in boss battles, as I'd still like to have Summons there. PvP Battles will most likely be 4v4, but 3v3 can also be an option too.

About Tweaking / Gameplay Alterations: I do want to keep the original spirit of the original games, but I think having some changes here and there could potentially make the game more varied and exciting. (New Psynergy, new types of Djinn effects and unleashes). I guess it really comes down to whether people want a game that emulates the original game with 100% accuracy (Or as close enough as possible) vs. a game that could be considered an expansion / re-balancing on the original mechanics while still maintaining the Golden Sun feel that everyone loves.

[Salanewt]

You will be able to make a Fire Adept a Guard or Flame User, regardless of gender.

Wooh, I can be a male witch! :P


The demo is pretty nice! Not sure if you're looking for any suggestions or opinions, but it probably wouldn't hurt to weigh in at least.

Summons: It might not hurt that much let summons be used in PVP, especially since they tend to be pretty average against players anyway. Using Boreas as an example, it deals about 240 base damage plus 12% of the foe's total HP. With following stats...

Attacker ePow: 100
Defender eRes: 150
Defender HP: 1000

... Boreas will only deal about 300 damage, give or take a bit. It's pretty much why Valukar is considered to be the easier of the bonus bosses (granted, it's ability to give you standby djinn doesn't help with that).

Djinn: Not too bad, but this also eliminates the ability to switch classes and open up new spells in the middle of battle. Even if those other classes are weaker, it's still great for making a unit more versatile.

Two turns/reviving: I love the idea of being able to either play my character defensively or offensively with those examples, but it also opens up the ability to have a full team of defenders and healers or some other team to stretch battles out anyway. Plus, if someone dies, then that team will mostly likely get wiped out with little opportunity for recovery. What if you were to make defend block 50~80% of all damage (would stick with djinn otherwise and leave out spells), and put some sort of limit on reviving? Djinni revives for example, or a reduced success rate for every reviving effect beyond items?


I like what you've done so far! Looks like you still need to add variation for sprite animations, transparency for battle animations, and element-dependent casting effects, but it still looks great so far. Camera works well, battles are pretty, and you even have the correct standard attack animations for each enemy/character (possible exception being enemy PCs, but I don't know how an enemy PC's attack would normally look in a battle anyway).

As for the very last part, I'd much rather see gameplay be altered from the original, yet still have a similar experience. Especially if you rebalance the luck stat and make ailments a viable option in battle. Totally up to you of course, since I want to see where this goes! 

[leaf]

Regarding 2 turns, my logic was that by giving everyone two turns, they have a few more options (not including utility Psynergy such as Impact, Sleep, etc):

1) Deal damage twice (double damage output)
2) Heal twice (double healing)
3) Defend once, heal or damage once (50% reduction + damage or healing)

Thus giving a bigger choice to the player, and making defense a viable option as you don't lose your entire turn to get 50% reduction. If player A attacked twice and player B was defending, player B would only take half damage, and if player B attacked player A, he would take full damage and thus, take an equivalent amount of damage. Player A would have expended twice the PP though if he was casting Psynergy.

Thoughts?

The problem is this assumes a 1v1 situation, while these battles are 4v4.

Assuming you're keeping djinn more or less in-tact... going with 4 member parties, we now have one character who uses a barrier djinni and attacks, and three chracters that each attack twice, for a total of 7 attacks each round. If you have two party members that each have a barrier djinni, alternating them, you still get 6 attacks per round, and the whole party is shielded from 50% (or more) damage every round. Considering the weakest barrier djinni is as powerful as a normal defend command (and they don't stack, either), there would be no reason not to play a strategy in which you continually unleash and set back barrier djinn; there's no drawback. Petra could counter it, technically, if the petra user were faster, but then you just end up with a silly situation in which half a party gets felled in one turn because of one use of petra, with the other half following them next turn, especially if you end up restricting revival options.

Increasing the number of actions per turn per team up to 8 would be very bad for the game's health. It would remove much of the decision making aspect, since you lose so little by having someone spend a turn to do something besides attacking in a game where you already have more than enough attacks available. To compensate for the massive number of attacks flying every round, you would need to drastically reduce damage taken by either messing with stats (via some combination of +hp, +def, and -atk) or directly altering the damage formula. Either way, you're changing a lot just for the sake of changing things.

If your goal is to make the defend command more useful, you'd be much better off directly attacking the problem by buffing the defend command. The current proposed solution is comparable to replacing a car's entire engine just because it needs an oil change.

About summon rushing: Sorry, it was like 12:30am when I wrote the reason. What I meant to say was that I wanted to discourage summon rushing in boss battles, as I'd still like to have Summons there. PvP Battles will most likely be 4v4, but 3v3 can also be an option too.

I see. The post I linked discusses 3v3 because that's what the GS link arena uses, and it was about using vba to play matches online, but much of it could also be applied to 4v4. Anyway, making bosses less vulnerable to summons is actually pretty trivial if you're willing to adjust the hp% damage (e.g. 2% per djinni down from 3%) or give bosses additional resistance to summons specifically (e.g. making all summons inflict 75% of their normal damage when used against a foe with a "boss" flag).

About Tweaking / Gameplay Alterations: I do want to keep the original spirit of the original games, but I think having some changes here and there could potentially make the game more varied and exciting. (New Psynergy, new types of Djinn effects and unleashes). I guess it really comes down to whether people want a game that emulates the original game with 100% accuracy (Or as close enough as possible) vs. a game that could be considered an expansion / re-balancing on the original mechanics while still maintaining the Golden Sun feel that everyone loves.

I've got nothing against tweaking. In fact, I think it would be for the best. But, I don't think it needs a complete overhaul, like giving every character two actions per turn, or any radical changes to the djinn set/standby/recovery system.

[Formina]

Wooh, I can be a male witch! :P

That's the plan!

Djinn: Not too bad, but this also eliminates the ability to switch classes and open up new spells in the middle of battle. Even if those other classes are weaker, it's still great for making a unit more versatile.

Yup, that's a good point. I guess it's a trade-off since you lose stats too, making yourself more vulnerable in order to deal a massive amount of damage. If I do have summons (And I kinda do, because they're pretty iconic to the games), the damage will probably need to be tweaked.

Two turns/reviving: I love the idea of being able to either play my character defensively or offensively with those examples, but it also opens up the ability to have a full team of defenders and healers or some other team to stretch battles out anyway. Plus, if someone dies, then that team will mostly likely get wiped out with little opportunity for recovery. What if you were to make defend block 50~80% of all damage (would stick with jinn otherwise and leave out spells), and put some sort of limit on reviving? Djinni revives for example, or a reduced success rate for every reviving effect beyond items?

Great ideas and good points. Personally, when I played the games, I found the revive spell very powerful and fairly cheap for its effect. I want downing a player to have a significant effect for the rest of the battle, and I think it should be very hard (but not impossible) for the losing side to come back (So this puts a lot of pressure players to keep their Adepts alive). I'm not a fan of the Djinn revives, mainly because of its RNG success rate, but a revive limit is also a great idea and definitely something to consider!

If there were 2 actions per round, I think a defense-heavy orientated team could possibly work, but they would run out of PP eventually (since your basic attack is free). I guess I just envision people playing a balanced style to be on the safe side, with 1 action spent on defending almost always, and the other on something else. You then have the option of being aggressive at the cost of taking increased damage. Of course, I can't speak for everyone, and people will probably just spam 2 attacks per round. :P

However, a straight up buff to Defense could also work if the turn limit was one. I want it to be a viable action to prevent too much focus fire. But defending is a risky play with only one action, because it's a wasted turn if you don't take damage.

I like what you've done so far! Looks like you still need to add variation for sprite animations, transparency for battle animations, and element-dependent casting effects, but it still looks great so far. Camera works well, battles are pretty, and you even have the correct standard attack animations for each enemy/character (possible exception being enemy PCs, but I don't know how an enemy PC's attack would normally look in a battle anyway).

Thanks!! Element-dependent casting effects is now done, I shall get the others done when I can. When you say transparency for animations, can you give me an example? I thought they were already transparent. XD

As for the very last part, I'd much rather see gameplay be altered from the original, yet still have a similar experience. Especially if you rebalance the luck stat and make ailments a viable option in battle.

Yup, there are plans to rebalance the luck stat and ailments. Here's the current plan:

Stun - A short duration effect that prevents the target from acting this turn.
Temporary Stun - The next action by the player is prevented (excluding defend).
Sleep - A longer duration disable, but it breaks immediately on damage. Can be removed by Restore.
Seal - Prevent psynergy from being cast. Can be removed by Restore.
Poison / Deadly Poison - Damage over time effect. Antidote can remove the effect.
Haunt - Inflicts 25% of the damage dealt to self. Can be removed by another separate Psynergy.
Delusion - All attacks miss including elemental physical attacks. Can be removed by Restore.

There will be CC immunity against repeated applications to prevent stun-locks. I want luck to play a factor in ailments but the implementation I am not sure of yet. Thank you for your feedback!

The problem is this assumes a 1v1 situation, while these battles are 4v4.

Yes, that's true. I guess the idea was most people play safe (as in, use one of their actions on Defend), so pretty much everyone has 50% reduction. Then you have the option of being dealing double damage at the cost of taking double damage, which I think would be a cool strategic choice. Of course, that's my ideal scenario, which probably isn't going to happen in practice. :P

As far as Barrier Djinn go, I guess it depends on whether or not Summons are in. If they aren't then my proposed idea would mean barrier Djinn would have a high recharge time, limiting their use, so you couldn't just unleash and set them continuously. Their defensive ability would stack with Defend multiplicatively (So granite + defend would be 75% reduction).

Increasing the number of actions per turn per team up to 8 would be very bad for the game's health. It would remove much of the decision making aspect, since you lose so little by having someone spend a turn to do something besides attacking in a game where you already have more than enough attacks available. To compensate for the massive number of attacks flying every round, you would need to drastically reduce damage taken by either messing with stats (via some combination of +hp, +def, and -atk) or directly altering the damage formula. Either way, you're changing a lot just for the sake of changing things.

Well, reducing the decision making aspect is not meant to be the goal here. It's meant to increase options, but I can see where you are coming from. You are right - there will be a ton of attacks flying around - so to compensate, HP would most likely be doubled.

If your goal is to make the defend command more useful, you'd be much better off directly attacking the problem by buffing the defend command. The current proposed solution is comparable to replacing a car's entire engine just because it needs an oil change.

This is also an option.

Basically, I want Defend to be viable against focus fire, and I just thought increasing commands to 2 might add some new spice in into the battle system and open up options that weren't previously available (I was a big fan of the Kite Djinni). However, you have very valid points and I am looking at ways to buff Defend to make it more useful with only one action.

For the time being, the actions are set at one, but I will test out two as well. One thing I could do is have different "Leagues" with different rule sets, so I could have something like a Classic Mode (Similar to the original) and then some funky other modes too for people who want something a little different.

I see. The post I linked discusses 3v3 because that's what the GS link arena uses, and it was about using vba to play matches online, but much of it could also be applied to 4v4.

Yup, it was a good read! Did anything ever come out of that? I have done much link battling myself so it'd be great to hear from more firsthand experience.

Making bosses less vulnerable to summons is actually pretty trivial if you're willing to adjust the hp% damage (e.g. 2% per djinni down from 3%) or give bosses additional resistance to summons specifically (e.g. making all summons inflict 75% of their normal damage when used against a foe with a "boss" flag).

Thanks! Both sound like great options.

I've got nothing against tweaking. In fact, I think it would be for the best. But, I don't think it needs a complete overhaul, like giving every character two actions per turn, or any radical changes to the djinn set/standby/recovery system.

Okies! Great points in your post and I definitely don't want to stray too far away from the original games. You are right, it doesn't need a complete overhaul, I just wanted to add some spice to make things interesting, that's all. Thank you for your feedback!

Whew!! Long post. Before I go, I did make some updates to the project over the week. Not as much as I would have liked, but it has been somewhat of a busy week for me.

What's changed?
- General graphical enhancements (Added in purple target crystal, cursor thingy when selecting Psynergy, added a border for most menu labels, information when choosing a target displays now). Special thanks to Luna_blade for the sprite rips!
- Psynergy damage and healing calculations now properly takes into account power and resistance values.
- Class bonuses are now calculated for each Adept (Only the basic classes are in so far - Squire, Guard, Wind Seer, Water Seer)
- Psynergy is now only available to the appropriate Classes (No more Whirlwind on Isaac and friends)
- Several new Psynergy have been added to each Adept with their respective effects (Sounds are coming soon). More coming with every update!

You can view it here: https://db.tt/R4Jfs9wQ

[Rolina]

Umm... I hope this isn't too much to ask, but... can we have a version that allows a WASD control option?  I am very much not a fan of the ZXAS control scheme.  I figured it could simply be a controls layout in the options menu.

[Lord Wolfram]

Umm... I hope this isn't too much to ask, but... can we have a version that allows a WASD control option?  I am very much not a fan of the ZXAS control scheme.  I figured it could simply be a controls layout in the options menu.

To think about it...
I have played many Roms games with ZXAS but it can be rely usefull thing to make player to make his own controls like this.
[Z] = [W]
[X] = [A]
[A] =
= [D]

this can be a good solution.

[Aile~♥]

No, she means using WASD to move in place of the arrow keys, then setting A/B/L/R to different keys entirely.

Also, looks like you accidentally found the Strikethrough tag!

[Lord Wolfram]

I see.
Anyway as I said give player the ability to chose his own controls.

[Rolina]

That'll be great.  After getting into PC gaming, ZXAS-type games have started to drive me nuts.  It's a big reason why don't like RPG Maker and Flash games.

[Luna_blade]

Could you explain me what ZXAS games are? Google isn't exactly helpfull in this case.

[Lord Wolfram]

Could you explain me what ZXAS games are? Google isn't exactly helpfull in this case.

when was the last time you played golden sun?
Let's take a battle you want to attack
you press Z and then you thunk that better is to cast umm Ragnarok.
so you press X to return slot to Felix.
A is autofire for Z and S for X
Those  are rpg controls.

[Luna_blade]

when was the last time you played golden sun?
Let's take a battle you want to attack
you press Z and then you thunk that better is to cast umm Ragnarok.
so you press X to return slot to Felix.
A is autofire for Z and S for X
Those  are rpg controls.

Lol what? I never have any autofire buttons assigned.
BTW I played TLA with a gamepad and emulator and I played GS with my DS.
But yeah, now I get her problem.

[Rolina]

ZXAS is a control scheme.

Arrow Keys are the directional keys, while the command buttons are Z, X, A, and S.  Some games add C and D as well, but they're still considered ZXAS (because Zee-Zus is catchy).  I like to control direction with my left hand, and commands with my right.  It feels natural for both console and PC gaming.  But most Flash games, as well as pretty much every RPG Maker game out there uses ZXAS as its standard, which is the reverse of that.  After 27 years of gaming a certain way, it just feels kinda... backwards.  Like I'm being forced to use Left-handed controls for some reason.