Good to see this project is still going! I'm the same Metastase that proposed that Recharge System on the 2nd GFAQs discussion linked here.
Herro again, Metastase. I am glad to see you, you are the rare one, who actually paricipates with ideas.
Let's go part by part.
I think you're on the right track if you're planning to use %-based mechanics (such as status effects) to provide replayability. The alternative being VERY clever enemy patterns, which are much harder to create. That said, maybe this is too ambitious and you should reconsider the scope of this enhanced replayability, 1 alternative being: Create 2 different difficulty patches, 1 for a clean playthrough and the other assuming max lvl characters.
Well. At first, I don't really look at status-effects as at %-based mechanics. Only chance of applying is %-based, however, in the original game it provides more harm than good. Status-effects are often left unnoticed in the original game, even when they are applied. But with chance to NOT be applied they become even more unnoticed. I think, we should do quite the opposite — make them clear and distinct.
Also, status-effects are binded to corresponding colors and not all the enemies will have access to all colors in addition to their innate one (I mean, thematically, Lynx probably can use all of them, but Green Dragon doesn't need to use fireballs to be succesful).
Also, you need to read this thing:
https://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php?topic=11061.0What about clever patterns — we definitely have to create some, but not every monster or boss should be VERY clever, you know, otherwise, every battle would look the same.
2 patches for the first and endgame playthroughs are actually an issue. There are some technical problems, which I can't yet describe, but, anyway, we don't need 2 patches, we can have scaling enemies and different patterns for each playthrough in a single patch, but it effectively doubles the amount of work needed, you know.
Otherwise your attempt to improve replay value will invariably have to face the "gambling" issue I've mentioned on that GFAQs discussion.
Well, 99% of all gamedesigns would go with one of 3 ways:
1. Remove "prepare"-phase completely to eliminate gambling. This is bad, because you actually reduce the amount of available player actions. It's good sometimes, but not in our situation. I mean, imagine Chrono Cross as just a line with battles going one by one without preparations. You solve a puzzle with elements given you by a god (developer), which is not actually bad, but prepare-phase definitely makes the game interesting, It's just as new game inside an existing game.
2. Make every available choice similar to other choices. This is exactly how it's done in the original game. You have a lot of various things and can win with any combination of them. While this sounds good, it's actually very casual experience. I mean, it may be good at start, but after some point every player will realize that he doesn't have to care at all.
3. The same is above, but improved with optionality. It provides a lot of gambling, but, however, with enough testing you can heavily improve it to the point where "every strategy is valid as long as it's very well executed and not heaviliy countered". We also can provide a lot of feedback to player, so, if strategies are flexible enough, you still can win even with not the best strategy in particular situation, even it's not the worst strategy. Yes, gambling still exists in this situation, but it's less noticeable.
However, as long as game is limited with amount of bosses/enemies/etc, you can't create an environment, where existing gamble doesn't matter anymore (even with your "recharge" idea, about which later).
I can give an example. EVE Online is pretty complex MMO-game. A lot of things and strategies in this game can easily kill others. However, it's not just rock/paper/scissors.
Like, you have to go with ship A against ship X. You don't know which ship you are going to face, so you hae to make choices:
- For ship A choose setup 1, which is very good against most of setups of ship B. You will fly and try to skip all the ships except B, or vice-versa.
- Choose an "universal" setup with some weak points or take different setups and swap them right before battle.
The second thing is perfectly applied to Chrono Cross. However, PVP-games are self-content-creating, while Chrono Cross is not. Gamble is heavily diminished due to wide variety of possible results and also due to simple statistics and a lot of engagements.
It's not the best, but there is no other way. We can't get rid out of it, but we can make it less-noticeable. However, I prefer described ways more than your recharge idea because recharge idea actually removes "prepare"-phase, which is a big deal.
I know, it's just a way to change battle-system from outside, but it's a weird looking workaround from design-perspective. I mean, even without 6 recharges, but with only one and color-less, it's still would look like Recharge is a thing above all the battle-system and not a part of it (as element).
I mean, you can't expect Single-Player-Story-Oriented-Linear-Game to have good replayability. Once you beat all the bosses with new scritps — you have done here.
Maybe we can add a tons of new battles with increasing difficulty over and over (after end-game).
Also on that GFAQs discussion I've mentioned a clean approach to determine each Boss "theme" in order to maximize CC's battle engine functionality and how to choose plot points for specific Element distribution. The short version: Sum the total number of unique/strategic/interesting Elements, then divide them by the number of Bosses. Enforce those Element drops needed accordingly before the next boss.
I do not argue here, it looks fine.
I still think replacing 1 useless Element of each colour for multiple versions of Recharge is a superior (not to mention more doable) solution when it comes to re-designing CC's battle system.
I don't think battle-system need a redesign. It has some major unfixable issues, but everyting else is pretty well designed. Just parts of system need a lot of tweaks. However, I do understand your point and I love to discuss it.
Still, replacing 6 useless elements seems worse to me than just making them useful.
Just imagine trying to balance the system bias on the usefulness of certain character Innates (by map/boss) based on how useful a certain added status effect became on any given new Attack Element spell (such as "Asleep"). This adds such an unnecessary clutter/obfuscation to what is otherwise a very clean Innate system that I'm not sure it's actually worth it.
I do not understand what do you mean here. Status effects are already binded to Attack elements color by color, heavy buffed status effects would not affect complexity.
IE: If a Boss wastes his turn to Purify himself, now you have to design him to account for even more punishment from 3 attackers and what about those players that didn't discover the Boss status vulnerability? See what I mean by unnecessary complication?
Enemy can become more resistant or immune to some statuses if you abuse them too much. Even with feedback — some elements may give you resistances to be statused. Just an idea.
Also, you don't need to actually discover vulnerability, I think most of the immunes should be removed, maybe except those, which fit very good thematically.
There are a lot of other workarounds, like, if you just Antidote'd your Poison status, it would be pretty logical if you can't be poisoned right after.
Also, as I said, I would recommend everyone to use external overlay. We will probably add accessory item which will provide new information to your interface. Probably even with resistances of your enemy. I thought about bestiary, but not sure about it.
I am not implying that we should use everying I explained, but there are definitely enough ways to go.
Ultimately, I think it all depends on what you guys are currently capable of doing with enemy pattern modding on CC. If you can list the AI behaviors/limitations currently available to you I'm sure people can provide much more useful and precise feedback. Maybe that will spark new (but doable) ideas too, right?
Well, right now we can do almost everything. Enemies can gather and use information available to player and plan accordingly. I don't know, battlescripts and external overlay allow us to do anything, except self-learning enemies.
