My goal in making games with RPGM is to try to figure out for myself how to make something work. To me, that is much of the fun. I therefore try to not listen to others about how to do something. If however, I can't get something to work, then I am willing to ask for help no problem.

I am not at the stage yet where I am asking for help, so please do not post in this topic how to do something specifically, or at least please use a spoiler if you are going to go into intricate details.

All I am asking is this because I have no idea about the answer to it. In this community, what is the traditionally accepted way to 'originally' balance stats for character classes, enemies, and items? In other words, is there some well know source that all of you refer to know exactly how AGI or MDEF actually affects the calculations by the program? I know basically what the stats are for but I don't know how they are used in calculations nor, how to balance them other than by trial and error with respect to enemies as characters level up.

I know that there are in game samples (at least in RPGMs 2 and 3) that give you an idea on where to start a classes attribute wise, but I have seen nothing in the instructions about how to balance as the characters advance or how specifically calculations are done.

My question to all of you is specifically, is this considered common knowledge (that I myself don't have), are you individually using some guide that you found (while others may be using different guides) or is everyone working via trial and error to test and hope things balance stat/attribute wise?

Thanks.

Lmao, out of a boat load of games that I have played here the "balancing" of battle goes as far as "as long as you win, it's okay"... and sometimes not even then.

I think that battle is severly overlooked in RPG Making. At least in RPG Maker 1. And I say that because you can do quite a good deal of different things in battle... but every boss has the same freaking strategy: "Attack for as long as you can and heal."

But the thing is, you should be able to make every boss fight significant in some way. Like, have a guest party member that has a reflect spell... have the boss have a boat load of phisical def. And having reflect up and going at all times be the ONLY way to survive as the boss will have some devistating magic attack.

There is even an elemental system that go almost unused... making enemies weak to some but strong to others. That's why, when I design, I am creating the entire game and not touching anything battle related. Once complete, go back and fine tune EVERYTHING battle related... make sure that battle can't be as simple as "pressing X a bunch and heal when needed" but not too difficult at the same time.

My goal was to keep all the numbers as low as possible. I dislike high numbers. Why have a goblin who does 100 damage to a character who has 300 Hp when you can have the goblin do 10 damage to a guy who has 30? Same difference.

With that said, low numbers don't work out all that well when it comes to small details like an item that heals a percentage of Hp.

Setting up the whole thing was easy because my Tier 1 of monsters are evenly matched with the heroes in every way. I set up an arbitrary low number for base Hp and Mp. Low numbers for strength, defense, magic, and magic defense based on how much damage I wanted the combatants to be dealing out to each other on average. Then just mirror that for the Tier 1 of monsters (except that Tier 1 are melee fighters; they have no magic). Tier 2 adds a bit more to the stats (more melee fighters). Tier 3 are the first magic casters. Their Hp is between Tiers 1 and 2, and they get enough Mp that they won't run out after a few exchanges. And so on, adding further tiers of monsters that get tougher based on how much tougher the heroes are when they first encounter them.

Each regular encounter with a bunch of the usual lackeys is like a boss fight in its own right. You start out evenly matched with them (but with a small advantage, as there are no enemy healers present and you outnumber them by one). By the time the healers start showing up, you're tough enough to handle it. When the magic casters start tossing out more damaging spells, you're tough enough to handle it but it's still a pretty pitched battle. There are a few occasions where you get it easy because you just got stronger but you're still going up against guys who gave you a tough time of it earlier; it's a respite of comeuppance. But it won't be long before the difficulty gets back to full swing.

My real bosses are pretty much what Lantis described. Hit 'em with everything you've got while staying healthy. It was an intended joke. After working your way through tough encounters with lackeys and mini-bosses, the boss is a remarkably straight-forward encounter.

My second game is going to follow a similar motif, although it'll probably end up being easier because of a more gradual difficulty incline and a few variables that'll just make it easier.

I worked meticulously on the battles and playtested it to death over a six month period until I got everything the way I wanted it. Then I spent an additional two months tweaking the AI (lots of trial and error there).

I can maybe offer up some tips for the AI when the time comes.

You actually make a very good point. After my first game in RPG Maker... the first thing I did with character was take ALL of the base stats as low as could and still feel comfortable with them. Though the reason is a bit different. I don't mind as much how much damage is actually displayed (100 or 10, ect) but I do care about how significant a jump in stats go per level. If all the stats were really high, then you might have the problem of either being too strong or too weak.

Just a rule of thumb, I guess... the lower, the better.

Speaking about the PC makers here.

The problem with VX and XP is that they deliberately set the stats for characters and monsters too high. The maker even offers you an option to create a progression curve for the stats automatically. But the numbers are always too high.

Me, like Xix and Lantis, I dislike the high numbers. Coming from a D&D background, where a starting character usually has between 4 and 18 HP, seeing 2000 HP on screen bothers me to some extent. Not only that, the hundreds and the thousands are impressive numbers, and impressive things are reserved to players who have devoted their time and energy into a game.
I'm fine with dealing 19547 damage, as long as you're level 90 or something.

Anyway, the thing is, I wanted RPGM VX to have lower numbers. But it just wasn't possible. The "balancing act" failed. I looked into it and discovered why: the battle formulas in VX (and XP) are set up to use high numbers. They just don't work properly when the numbers you put into them are too low.

Thankfully, the PC makers give the game creator access to pretty much all the scripting engine of the game. So I got off my chair, stopped being lazy and just rewrote the entire battle system to fit my game better.
I tweaked down the multipliers in the formulas so they work better with lower numbers, but most importantly, I changed things I thought the battle system did wrong, and added things of my own.

Now I can safely say my game uses a 'Gnasher System' of battle; my modifications add depth and make standard battles more interesting.
To finally answer your question (sorry about the ramble =P), I didn't check any guide or follow any principle, I went and made the principle I wanted to follow the one that works in the game. ^^

That is, sadly, only possible in the PC makers, where you can edit scripts.

yes, the stat increase is as stated. with the hugeness of the jump per level it makes it quite pertinent to set it low to be able to control its accent. also note that with the jump, a long game will run out of monster stats, meaning the values will be into the high thousands in order to balance the battles if anything other then a low stat is chosen. also note that low numbers are easier to work with.

most dont balance because it takes a lot of time and skill to do it well. so many significant factors interplay to make up the finished product. so many considerations per character, per item, per magic, per monster.

so where do you start? start with having a vision of what you want to achieve. xix has laid out a very good plan on how battles should proceed.

start with the char stats, using the 35 point rule is a good idea. then balance the armor using the hp conversion rules. create the weapons, using a low attack value for inital equip. set the monster stats using the point rules governing that (im referring to the rpg maker 1 balancing guide) and then set the magic values to reflect what kind of result you want.

yet even with a balanced battles i find that people generally just use attack to defeat monster - i tend to even do this when playing professional games. not many like the prospect of having to use only one type of ability to win a battle - its frustrates them. patience is at a minimum when it comes to rpg maker games, so be aware of this.

@The Gnasher

Well what about RPGM2, are you able to find the scripts that control battle damage and edit the preset scripts or create your own, or are the battle formulas still locked in the software, unable to be seen?

^ I have... no idea, to be honest. Never touched RPGM2 or 3.

I got easily frustrated with experience and level gaining. So I axed it. Instead, the party gains Hp and Mp after each boss fight. The next thing I got frustrated with was gaining stats along with the Hp and Mp (strength, defense, and such). It made the party stronger than I wanted them to be. So I axed that. You get more damage-dealing capability from upgrading your weapons, and better defense from upgrading armor.

I like simplicity and dislike unnecessary complexity.

My games are very structured. It follows a motif throughout the whole game.

1. Enter dungeon, clear out dungeon.
2. Find boss, defeat boss, gain Hp and Mp.
3. Go back to town, sell loot, conduct other commerce.
4. Buy more supplies for the next dungeon sojourn.
5. Upgrade weapons and armor if you can afford it.
6. Enter next dungeon, rinse and repeat.

With this game plan in mind, I populated the first dungeon with event-battles, events, and deco. Played it through. Wrote down how much money I had afterward and compared that to how much money I'd like the player to have. Made adjustments accordingly. Wrote down player stats after the gains and equipment upgrades (if applicable). If the next dungeon has new monsters, I've got everything I need to balance them with the player.

Populate the second dungeon. Play it through with my saved game in playtest mode. Write down money and new stats. Design new monsters. And so on.

I kept everything on a level that I can understand and work with. That kept it fun and real for me because I wouldn't have enjoyed working with the experience and level-gains.

What I described earlier was based around the idea of fighting monsters who can put up a pitched fight. So, I just made them evenly matched in terms of stats and then unbalanced the battle in the player's favor by other means (enemies don't have a healer; player has spells enemy doesn't have; player outnumbers enemy, etc). If you're evenly matched in every way, you're barely gonna scrape by, which isn't fun. I designed it so you can win every battle without losing anyone in the party. I enjoyed coming up with strategies to beat it while keeping all of my players in the game.

I agree with you Bo, about the fun of the software comes in working through solutions on your own.

That being said, I know a while back at the Pavilion, JPS created an Excel or some other program stat-tracker that allowed you to plug in numbers for levels, stat values, etc, and would give you the corresponding stats for an evenly-balanced enemy. I know he was working on something similar for gold, in tems of tracking the optimum amount, so you're not getting WAY more gold than you'd ever need (as is what happened in my first game). I do not think the latter was finished, as JPS kinda left the community, methinks.


Also, someone else DID figure out exactly how INT, STR, MAG, etc, work, in terms of exactly what value they add to skills, spells, etc. Again, I remember seeing this at the Pavilion a while back, but both of the above, I cannot vouch for, as by the time they had been posted, I had pretty much already sworn off battles almost entirely.

I'd like to link you, but my PS3, which is how I browse, does not have a copy/paste function.


EDIT: The above info is for RPGM3.

@Perversion,

Thanks. That is more specifically what I was asking about.

But I still appreciate all the responses.

Well, while not a big deal, I managed to figure out how damage is calculated in RPGM 1, allowing me to determine how much damage would I like the enemy/party to give/receive ,and set the defense and attack of the enemy according to these calculations.
I just forget about the possibilities of critical hits, which would ruin the amount of hits I expect the player to take to die without healing. (I's a good thing you can put a no Critical hit ability to monsters!)
So basically, I use the HP, DEF and ATK of the team, and then set the monsters stats accordingly.
What I'd really wih is that magic damage was bases on the INT stat rather than fixed damage. It makes them useless that much faster as you level up.

Yeah, critical hits were messing up my game, too. In RPG Maker 3, it not only does extra damage, it stuns the character for a good two or three turns. When my guys scored a crit on an enemy character, it was way too easy. When an enemy scored a crit on one of my guys, it messed up the strategy of the battle because the guy was out of the game for a few turns. I made everyone anti-critical.

As a side note, not having control over critical hits in RPGM3 bothers me too, but I am much moreso bothered by all the times either the character or the enemy misses.

That's because missing in the default RPGM is a pure luck thing that happens, more or less, 5% of times.
So it's like "whooops you missed you just got screwed over by that 5% you thought were irrelevant, joke's on you, playa".

In my game I made missing an integral part of gameplay. Much like in tabletop RPGs, hitting at all is just as important as how hard you hit.

To my understanding, that was one of RM3's major problems. I've never used RM3, but I've seend videos with people talking about how the miss chance happens way too much and there's really nothing you can ever do about it.

Yeah, missing in RPGM3 happens WAY too much by default. And yes I can see where missing is OK if you want that as an aspect of your battles or if it happens only on occasion, but if that is not what you want it is frustrating both because it messes with the flow of damage and in RPGM3, each move takes so long to execute, you are like, "Oh great there is yet ANOTHER 20 seconds of my life wasted". You have to just sit through it frustrated and annoyed. Bad.

EDIT: As a matter fact, ironically, this is where critical hits can help because they do so much damage that they kind of make up for the time spent missing connecting a normal attack. But it is all very contrived.

Magic never misses in RPG Maker 3.

So in deciding what's worth the most (in terms of money and other value considerations), I came up with an attack family tree.

1. Melee (weapon) attack, Strength attribute
2. Magic attack, Magic attribute
3. Melee defense, Defense attribute
4. Magic defense, MDef attribute

An accessory that improves your melee attack is worth the least. While it's giving you an edge in melee damage, there's still a chance you could miss. An accessory that improves your magic is worth more because you can never miss. Defense is worth more than offense because you'll be taking less damage and therefore won't have to use as many restorative items and/or spells.

In my games, magic is usually much more potent than the weapons, but it comes at a casting cost. You're using up ammo (Mp), whereas the sword has no cost for using it (melee attack). Still, there are times during battling when I use a melee damage enhancer spell and attack melee because it's more cost efficient then tossing out fireball after fireball. The enhanced damage is about as good as the spell. So while magic is more powerful at base value, you've got options to choose from.

My weapons add to your Magic attribute, giving us a reason to purchase those high end broad swords and other stuff late in the game when we're mostly swathing a path of destruction with powerful magic. Armor adds to your MDef for the same reason.

Okay, so here's what I'm doing. Not necessarily what everybody else needs to do, but something to go off of. Like Lantis, I'm not going to bother a whole lot with battle balancing until I get the rest of the game done. This way I'll know how to balance the early areas in relation to the later areas.

I do like the high numbers, though. When I see myself hitting for over 1000 damage for the first time, it feels good, 'cause I know I'm getting powerful. But that just isn't a good idea with RPGM1. Namely because enemies can only have up to 9999HP. Would make for rather short boss battles, you know. But it'd also be a lot more difficult to balance, because the way RPGM1's stat formulas work, a single level-up is significant even at low numbers.

However, I'm not gonna set my stats as low as they can go, either, because the level-ups work against low stats as well. If a set of characters have their attack going up by 1, 2, or 3 points per level, by L30, each character would have 30, 60, and 90 attack points. Having that 60-point difference between the strongest and weakest attacker can't be helped much, but that character with only 30 attack points is going to be causing pitiful damage in comparison. But if I have the attacks going up by 4, 5, and 6 points with stats at L30 being 120, 150, and 180, that 120-attacker may be relatively weak compared to the 180-attacker, but at least that 120 still leads to a respectable amount of damage.

I still want to get that feeling you get when you deal over 1000 damage, though, so I'm going to try to make it so for the majority of the game, your regular attacks don't do more than 100 damage except for critical hits. That way, when you get that critical hit and see that damage counter go over the rare 100 damage count, you know that attack had to hurt. And fortunately for me, with the way RPGM1 formulates damage, this is easy enough to achieve with giving out those 4-6 attack points per level. The biggest variable would only be how powerful the weapons are at the time. It means most bosses won't have more than 2000HP, but you never see the boss's max HP in-game anyway, so that's no big deal. Besides, with the HP cap being at 9999, once the bosses get over 1000HP, those numbers just start being reduncant.

As for magic, I keep MP costs low so the player won't be so afraid to use magic, and to make up for the HP consumption of special attacks, I make them more powerful than the regular magic.

Equipment gets more powerful at a steady rate. Equipment found in dungeons will either be at least as powerful as the stuff that can be bought in furthur towns, or will hold some special power that will make it worth keeping even if it isn't strong physically. This is actually a must. If you put in a treasure chest equipment that you was able to buy in the previous town, it's worthless. (Exception being consumable weapons, like throwing stars.)

Regular enemies. No more than three hits to defeat a regular enemy, unless it's an enemy that usually fights alone. But there's no sense making a regular battle last as long as a boss battle. If an enemy takes one hit, though, make sure its speed is high enough (or that it's a large enough group) that it is able to get an attack in. And even though regular enemies don't necessarily need boss-like strategies, it'd still be nice to give the player reason to choose some enemies over others. Making an enemy really fast or giving the enemy a bad status attack is the simplest way to make the player more likely to choose it over whatever enemy happens to be first in the battle list.

I figure, on average, 15 battles should result in a level-up (I'm using non-random encounters). That'd allow for 1 level-up per dungeon, 2 if it's a longer dungeon. I'm either gonna base enemy stats on the player being either 2/3 or 3/4 the current possible level, to allow for the player to sometimes miss or avoid enemies. I do not intend to make battles at the end of the game so difficult you have to heal during or after every single regular battle; it's an annoying habit that a lot of professional RPGs do, and I wind up just running from every battle in the last dungeons as a result. I mean, I'd like to be able to use my healer for things other than healing every once in a while, you know? Feel free to make use of bad status attacks in the final dungeon, though. They can be annoying, but it helps mix things up a little, you know?

Speaking of status effects, be careful which ones you use. Some of them are okay to use, but a few can be too overpowered. In RPGM1, for example, there's a "reflect" spell available to use. It never wears out, and it even blocks magic intended to break magic effects. (I just double-checked.) If you're going to use spells like this, make sure the MP cost is high and that it can only be cast on one member at a time. And on that note, make sure you know the extent of a spell's or bonus's effectiveness. As for Poison, yes, it's weak. It's not gonna be good if you're poisoned, but the only enemies poison would be effective against is bosses. And if you're using RPGM1 and have bosses weak against poison, don't include a Death spell. If one bad status effect works, they all work. In fact, go ahead and don't plan on having a Death spell at all, because bosses can be a little more fun to fight if you're able to bad-status them.

Now let me talk about bosses. First off, bosses whose strategy for defeating them consists of "attack, attack, heal, attack attack, heal": not fun. Allow the player to fight that way if he wants, but give the player a reason to use those magic spells and special items he's aquired throughout the quest. This is pretty much common knowledge.

Next, regular bosses should not take more than 7-10 turns to take down. In fact, aim for 7 turns, because the player won't know how to defeat the boss so easily and will wind up taking more turns to win than you. Optional bosses are well and good, but if you're going to have an optional boss more powerful than the final boss, don't give the player anything to simply make him stronger in battle. You just defeated the most powerful enemy in the game, I don't think that Excalibur is necessary. Either give out a more creative reward, or don't make an Ultimate Boss at all.

And for the love of cheese, enough with the giving of multiple forms to final bosses! You're not surprising anybody! In the end, you either have a series of bosses that prove too difficult to the player because they're already worn out by the time the boss takes his final form (*coughfinalfantasyeightcough*), or each form is so short that it doesn't really feel like much of a challenge overall (dare I say, Final Fantasy 6?). Plus, not everybody has the necessary time to both defeat every form of the final boss and watch the 10- to 20-minute ending (me and Final Fantasy X).


By the way, in RPGM1 at least, damage is (1/2 Attack) - (1/2 Defense), magic is static, speed needs to be higher than luck for an attack to hit, and I never figured out how that immunity stat towards bad status effects works. And, if I recall, RPGM2 does allow you to change up the modifiers.

So apparently the consensus is to moreso playtest a guesstimated battle system at the end of programming rather than to design a mathematically consistent battle system from the start of programming. Is this because nobody knows how to really make the calculations work or because it is more fun that way to build. I can't imagine professional games creating their battle system via later guesstimation playtesting. This inability to design the system mathematically from the start seems to be able to compromise the quality of our games. Agree or disagree?