I’m going to be critical of this system but I want mention that I don’t really know what kind of game really uses a idle battle system and it might fit your needs perfectly, also the comments seem to be positive overall so keep that in mind as I take a sledgehammer to this system. In game design we often talk about meaningful choice but there is a step before that. Before a choice can be “meaningful” (this is a really vague concept to be honest) it first needs to be a choice at all, as opposed to what is known as a calculation. A choice is when multiple options that are all viable allowing the player to choose their prefered method. A calculation is when among all posibilities there are plain mathematically better options. (Know that what might be a calculation to a math graduate might be a choice for a highschooler) Anyway, that brings meto my critisism of this system, and it might not be a critisism if optimization is the whole point, but this system is “solvable”. Example, power slash vs dash. This might seem like a choice but in essence you’re trading 25% damage for a nature orb. The question is then, what is the value of a nature orb. This depends on the options but in this video for instance we know that 2 nature orbs and a turn are worth 200% from chain lightning which means power slash is worth 150% and dash is worth 135% + (200% - oc)/2 where oc is the opportunity cost of using a turn for chain lightning. Since theack is 100% plus a bonus and power slash is 150% minus that bonus we can estimate that a dry monve is about 125% no bonusses which means dash is worth 125 + (200 - 125)/2 = 162.5% as long as you are consuming the nature orbs which means dash, used well, is simply better than power slash. Now again, this might be what you’re going for, just ramp up the complexity, make the optimization harder and harder and have the player figure it out. But an issue with such a system can be that once a good enough strategy is found the player really won’t have anything to mentally engage with. The thing causing this problem right now is that every skill is related to and measured by a single value, the %. Adding different things that pull the player in different directions is the way to add choice, so maybe if you kill an enemy with a certain attack type one type might give more exp and another might give you an item and another actually reduces exp but is mathematically stronger. More ideas make the math “fuzzier”, making calculations harder and turning them into choices for more and more people. Still, cool idea, I’ll throw it in the vault for if it ever becomes the perfect system for something I’m trying to make.
Most rpg combat systems are just math problems until you take ennemies into account. The way I see it (I might be wrong), this system might fit a puzzle-rpg, in which you would change your build to defeat different ennemies. It would still be an optimization problem, just not a solved one if skills/resistances/weaknesses change each fight, forcing the player to rethink their strategy until they solve the new problem.
Great analysis, however that "meaningful choice" principle might only apply to the usual game where players are strongly involved, thus likely care whether or not their agency/involvement in the game matters. Meanwhile, this mechanic is designed for idle games, the players of which probably don't care if they just lazily do stuff, make an obvious move everytime, & press a few buttons to watch things operate on their own, instead of making meaningful/interesting decisions themselves "Mental engagement" seems to go against the design core/traditional style of idle games anyway. You'd probably be right to say it would be a problem in other genres, but the preferences of people who play idle games(instead of more engaging/intense games) might differ
@@marceeeeeeel1030 All RPG systems are about fun and none of them about math if you are able see the forest behind the trees. Otherwise we won't see 5 editions of DND - math was perfect from the very beginning the fun wasn't.
With the complexity, it would take a lot of calculation to solve based on the cards you have. But I feel like that's the whole point anyway... It's a strategy game. The fun is coming up with strategies. Adapting strategies to changing circumstances, etc. So the "solving" is where the fun is.
My assumption is that the video is an example of this system in action. The choices you assume are missing from this are off camera to the right. This is the stack of "skills" or "attacks" that OP is pulling from. I assume when he picks vitrolic burn, he could have picked tidal wave instead ,which is -2 melee and +1 water and applies "damp" to the enemy. These are the choices and in a full game with 40+ different skills this system would give you much choice. Your comment is narrow in scope as you assume you have seen the finished system in this video, when I see the point of the video as an example of how this system works in principle, not how it creates meaningful choice. For example. What if "Twuack" was only 1 of 3 different skills with no cost and each started a fundamentally different chain of events. One could lead to a more defensive line of skills and another more supportive with lots of DOTs. Also you also assume you have access to all these skills at once. For example, Power slash, a skill you state is weaker than Dash mathematically, is the skill you start with. But after completing the four or five quests you receive dash training from a dashing master. Now its progression and power slash has its place in the early game. What is different quest selections gets you an alternative to Dash (With similar mechanics in terms of your orb generation etc.)? Finally, the "fuzzier" mechanics you suggest are needed, are already in the video, you have ignite and poison, both of which could lead to other skills. How about a skill with requires the enemy to BE poisoned before you can use it? I don't feel like you criticism really relates to the purpose of this video as case study on how this "orb" combat system works. You point would be better directed at a completed combat system where you knew some of what you are assuming.
What you have yourself here, with just a squint, is a Turing machine. That “flexibility” is because your system is in fact Turing complete (ignoring the seven slot memory limitations). 😅
The system is in fact Turing complete even with only four slots. the tape is represented by 3 types: L, C, R the count of L and R are binary numbers representing the tape, and C is the center (the one that's selected) so the tape 100(0)101 would be L = 4, C = 0, R = 5 note that least significant bit is always closest to the center theres also a temporary variable T and this is used for multiplication and division you can do something like 2R -> T T -> R to half or double things and this can be used to bit-shift but you need a control signal of some sort to make that work so there is SL, SR for the shift left and shift right so that'd be something like 5SR, R -> 5SR, T 5SR -> 4SR 4SR, T -> 4SR, 2R and having different values of SR required ensures that you always do the steps in order so to shift right you would multiply R by 2 move C to R divide L by 2, putting remainder in C then to control the state, you have S where the count of S is the state you're on and that would be something like S, C -> 3S, 5SR S -> 2S, C, 5SL so you can very easily determine the shift direction, next state, and next center value to reduce that to 4 types from 7, you can notice that C, SL, SR, and S all have a finite amount of states so you can just combine those into one state variable which encodes all of those state transitions L, R, and T represent infinitely long binary numbers and thus you can't do the same with them
Might be able to decrease number of turns needed/reward chaining these moves together by having multiple party members working together. The chain represents party coordination, and each move is performed by a character. A single character can have multiple possible moves in the queue, while only performing x moves per turn. In the 15 turn to fire example, having four characters means that when the dash move is performed by Alice, Bob can still do thwack. This way you'd be reaching the final fire move by Turn 9 (and the 7 or limit really starts to come into play here, since you don't want to cause a buildup to occur. Apologies if this doesn't make sense, recovering from a cold right now
i got this reccomended out of the blue, and given that the video is somewhat old i don't know how much this suggestion might apply here, but i reccomend checking out the gambit system in FF12 and noticing the similarities between the two. While it does not manage different resources, like this concept's orbs, it does use very simple conditionals to decide what actions to use in a certain order and given certain situations(for example: setting a buff action at the top of the list will not simply spam it, but use it as soon as it runs out, allowing lower priority actions to still be executed). I feel like knowing how that design works might give you some inspiration on either some interesting concepts or at the very least what you might not want to implement in yours for excessive complexity
He did mention at the beginning(0:26) that this system was meant as a less complex alternative to the if conditionals for casual, non-programmer players
www.thetinytheorycrafter.com/ has been updated to feature "Logic" abilities, which add conditional usage to this orb system. Currently these logic conditionals are hardcoded on a per ability basis (for example, the "Venom Burst" ability that detonates poison stacks will only be used if the enemy has a certain number of poison stacks; Pyroblast will only be used as a fight opener; etc.). I believe this system would be made even better by having *very simplistic* logic gates that users can define themselves - only heal myself if I need it; hit enemies with attacks they are weak against; only use my buff if I don't already have that buff. I think the most important part of such a system is to make the UX as simple as possible - not a programmers interface, but a well thought out interface that simplifies the logic for every kind of player.
I was thinking of something like that too... perhaps giving poison adds poison orbs to the target (taking up space), and then certain moves use orbs on the target instead of on yourself. So... "Venom Burst: -3 target poison, 300% dmg." And... "Fan the Flames: -1 target ignite, 200% dmg." As for healing and such, maybe you take damage orbs. "Second Wind: -5 damage orbs." So that would only trigger if you're low on health. Or a lesser heal: "Second Wind: -5 damage orbs, +3 damage orbs." So when you're 5 down, you heal 2. A little fiddly in the wording, but you get the idea. Then you can avoid conditionals and making the UI more complex.
What could be cool is having abilities that have recharge. For example ability that does 100%, spends n orbs and generates same number of orbs but then gets a recharge timer so that you can force accumulation of orbs and only after that do some combo.
I can see how flexible such a system could be, with being able to play around with the max number of orbs so that the engine changes route earlier or later.
As a player what you would need to consider is DPT for the effectiveness of a strategy. It would do best for somewhat beefy enemies that will last a action few loops.
I was confused at 2:00. Why doesn't Power Slash use the orb created by Thwak? You said it looks left to right to see if it can use the skill. Souldn't PS be able to use the orb from Thwak? Or how did reversing the order of Thwak and PS optimize for how your system works?
He’s stating that if Thwak is on the left of Power Slash, in front of in the lineup, the game will automatically use that first. It’s using the first skill that meets the qualifications for use; since Thwak has no requirements to use, each turn the system will never move past that skill to the rest of the lineup because it analyzes skill requirements left to right starting at the very beginning of every turn.
Very interesting. I could imagine this in a non-idle RPG with multiple party members where you can choose which party member you want to have their ability-chains progressed, making it so that executing the move you want to execute takes a lot of planning ahead. However, like you said, this could take a lot of time, so perhaps you could have a ceryain amount of "points," say, 10, that you could spend during your turn in rapid succession to progress ability-chains as many times as you can afford. That would make things go by quicker. Enemies would have a lot more health or abilities would do a lot less damage to compensate for the high amount of points you have available to spend each turn, of course. This system is clever, I really just feel like adding choice during combat could make it more engaging. Hell, this concept could even work as a good puzzle game if you could rearrange the order of the abilities to your liking.
let me see if i understand this correctly 12 rounds. . . thwack (6 600) power slash (6 900) damage for 1500%/12 = 125% per round vs thwack dash chain (t d t c t d t c t d t c) thwack (6 600) dash (3 375) chain (3 600) 1575%/12 = 131.25% per round
And that's why at the end of the day, none of this creativity matters. It's just figure out the best DPS. It's a shame because he put in a lot of work for the skills for the game he made at the website. But I just end up looking at the combos and doing the Math and figuring out highest damage per round. Side effect of an Idle game. There's no concept of playstyle or picking something you enjoy or even that just looks pretty or fun. All there is, is Math.
In 7:03 in your first turn you generate 1 mele because of thwack, and in turn 2 you turn that melee in to nature, but then in the skill chain you have thwack after, so you can generate another melee orb right? because in that minute you end the 2nd turn in Dash.
Wow, this was some unique battle mechanic. Really impressed. For a beginner who is interested in game design, can you recommend any resources which helps improve thinking and designing capabilities? Thanks a lot
@@Rackhamish I echo that. Also, Extra Credits, The Game Overanalyser, Game Maker's Toolkit, and Architect of Games. Gamedev RU-vidrs like Jonas Tyroller, Miziziziz, and others also often go into depth with the topic
I really dig this idea and would love to use it as inspiration for a tabletop roleplaying game that I am designing. Or maybe just rip it off wholesale. Very cool. I'll comment again with an update if I get it to function properly in that context.
There ought to be a way to clear out your excess quickly - whether by letting the player actively trash colors they don't want in there or simply a Quit This Run button to snag your quiddity right away or by including a starter skill that does 50% damage and costs 1 Any. The latter feels like a kludge but I do think introducing abilities that eat "leftmost" without a care for color could be interesting.
I came back to this video just to say that I found a game that manages to implement something remarkably similar to this idea. The game is called Yi Xian, and it's a deck builder auto battler that I've been pretty obsessed with lately
I read a report saying the game accesses your microphone. Free + Chinese + No P2W = You're the product. Figure it out. Not to mention it's an idler/auto battler which means you let it run all day...
Say programmers like to create overly complex systems with unnecessary conditionals -> proceeds to create overly complex system with tons of conditionals. A neat thing I found out when tinkering with branchless code: A list of function-pointers in combination with an index that points at the next function pointer can make for a great pattern to have lots of options with "conditions" without ever needing to use an actual condition by virtue of calculating the next move before a decision needs to be made. Yout system IS very interesting, tho. I like the sort of "randomness" through complexity
@@HereTakeAFlower WB patented the Nemesys System, Bandai patented minigames during loadscreens, what we know as concepts or ideas can be patented. Luckily the only assholes that patent mechanics are industry giants and not indies.
@@FalcFalcFalcFalc I think they patented the Nemesis System in the sense that they patented their AI code, which is reasonable. Like, it's a very complex system, it's not like someone else is gonna casually develop a 86% accurate copy without explicitly striving to copy that.
This isn't solving any issue. How are you supposed to do this without a "bunch of IF statements" as you said most programmers will resort to? Also, you are creating a pattern. So you may as well just say "use Power 1 three times. Then use power 2 two times. Then use Power 3 one time. Then repeat." There is no logic here - in real games (even idle ones), the character should think about what it's attacking. Fire creature with ice powers, for instance.
Seems like he meant not using if statements _on the player's side,_ when the game is being played, not when a programmer wants to implement the system into software Also seems like he said programmers find in-game if statement-style player interface trivial, but not casual players. So he was likely talking about not using if statements on the user side, not on the programmer side(which would obviously use them unless they prefer another style). He wasn't aiming to "solve" the "issue" of programmers using if statements _when making the game,_ but rather the issue of casual, non-programmer players being daunted by in-game if statements _when playing it_
The point wasn't to make a combat system that can be done/implemented in a game without using if statements _in the programming,_ but to make a combat system that doesn't overwhelm non-programmer _players_ with if statements. It talks about the UI/UX aspect of game design, not the programming implementations. He talked about "if statements" to make programmer gamedevs realize that a Final Fantasy-style gambit mechanic isn't as easy to others as it is to them Of course the system doesn't solve the "issue" you had in mind, because it didn't talk about that in the first place! Granted, functional & mathematical programmers might be able to implement it with things other than if statements, but that wasn't the point of the video.
