ASM Hack Proposals (for modders and ASMers)

[Angel]

Having MP regen automatically would make me hate the use of MP an awful lot less, but that's a totally different hack altogether.

[Celdia]

The FF1 style revival thing would be cool.

Also, just a thought for personal use that I expect everyone else would hate/say defeats the entire purpose of this hack, but would there be space to put in an option to have an Injured unit's equipment destroyed entirely? Just 00 out all their equip data?

[Angel]

You're right - that would be hated. But could be accomplished.

It would equally encourage resetting if your unit had rare equipment, which also defeats the purpose and strategy of the hack. But it could be done. Just, if you use that, why even bother with the hack at all? It's nearly equal salt in the wound to lose a cultivated character as it would be to lose a Chaos Blade or so.

[Kaijyuu]

I'd like to pop in and say that the cost should be weighed against the bother of resetting the game, not the original punishment (loss of a character). Even if you make the new punishment far less annoying than the old one, the player will still reset the game if they feel it's less bother.

[3lric]

When playing FFTA (for those wackado people that do so) do people reset every time a unit has to go to jail for breaking a law? I dont see it as much that much different of a concept.

However the losing of armor thing I would also be against.

[Celdia]

Just, if you use that, why even bother with the hack at all? It's nearly equal salt in the wound to lose a cultivated character as it would be to lose a Chaos Blade or so.

For an idea of mine that really wouldn't have much in the way of unique equipment like Chaos Blades. I've got a difficulty hack idea brewing in the back of my head lately. Which reminds me... Elric, I need to pick your brain sometime.

[3lric]

Elric, I need to pick your brain sometime.

Anytime

[Kaijyuu]

When playing FFTA (for those wackado people that do so) do people reset every time a unit has to go to jail for breaking a law?

Some people do.

I know in FFTA2 I sometimes reset if I really wanted the law bonus (60 ap is significant!).

[Choto]

Also, just a thought for personal use that I expect everyone else would hate/say defeats the entire purpose of this hack, but would there be space to put in an option to have an Injured unit's equipment destroyed entirely? Just 00 out all their equip data?

Yep that should be easy to do.

I'm still tossing the ideas around. I like the fact that counting by battle emphasizes unit-management whereas  healing for a gil cost emphasizes gil-management. However, adding another dimension to gil management would be cool if done in the right way. Doing it with battles would also be a super-simple hack in a location that I already have planned... so that may be v1.0 until I have more time.

In regards to where it should be done... I think restricting it to Orbonne would be a cool thing. If you are far away from it you might prioritize some battles over going all the way back to revive. FF1 Flavuh

[Angel]

So, 'fuck you' to Chapter 1, then?

[Choto]

Yup

[Xifanie]

Gosh, wow. If it's going to be that way, I don't even care anymore. Scrap the hack.
I'm sure you know that the player can't remove temp leaving/missing/injured units.

And what about story hacks?
You're not really showing flexibility here. If you're just making the hack for yourself, you might as well keep it to yourself then.

[Choto]

Ok, relax. I was just joking. I didn't think about chapter 1 cause I was just tossing the idea around late last night so obviously it won't work that way. And I think I am being flexible by letting discussion take place and considering the options. I even said that I may make my own version separately from a public version.

[nitwit]

Yep that should be easy to do.

I'm still tossing the ideas around. I like the fact that counting by battle emphasizes unit-management whereas  healing for a gil cost emphasizes gil-management. However, adding another dimension to gil management would be cool if done in the right way. Doing it with battles would also be a super-simple hack in a location that I already have planned... so that may be v1.0 until I have more time.

In regards to where it should be done... I think restricting it to Orbonne would be a cool thing. If you are far away from it you might prioritize some battles over going all the way back to revive. FF1 Flavuh

Do it as a proposition-like-thingie and you can set up both gil and unit management.  Also lets people customize it.  Things to customize:

• Placement (In a Bar as a proposition, in separate menu area - your choice as hacker as it's more about what's feasible since editing fluff is easier than creating and editing menus)


• Locations available (straight list of locations)


• Location types available (fort city, trade city, capitals)


• Proposition requirements (n days, n battles)


• Proposition length (the n in requirements)


• Proposition base cost in gil


• Proposition cost per level multiplier in gil

It's not that big of a table when you think about it because it's actually just one proposition available in multiple places, unless you want separate revival propositions.

[JantheX]

First off, I love the idea of having an alternative to crystallization and I'm excited that Choto's working on something to that end.  Good idea, sir, I offer you much encouragement, and if I knew what I was doing yet I would offer you actual help with getting it done.

If I can make a suggestion, I really like the idea of Choto's hack oriented around being able to pay for a character to rest in an inn and recover.  Personally, I'd be inclined to make it about both money and number of days- you pay for each day they have to stay there (which makes intuitive sense), and the number of days that they have to be there scales off of their level.  Add a Y-value of some sort for the end modder to change how much the money cost scales with level so that flexibility is retained for different approaches to levelling and money-per-battle hacks.

Here's why I think this is a good idea:

1. Money is a more fungible commodity than per-battle scaling, and can accomplish the same goal if the scaling is high enough.

2. Money scaling allows players to make a choice between selling equipment and trying to fight using different members of the party, which at least has the potential to be interesting in multiple approaches to the game. 

3. This approach has a strongly developed explanation- you're paying for each day they have to stay.  Another reasonable explanation might be to simply say you were paying for their medical bills and buy the person back immediately, but as Choto has mentioned above, time limitations really aren't meaningful limitations at all and I don't think we should be afraid to add them to the game.

4. Using the "will someone reset" standard ultimately results in making no changes at all, since any change that is impactful enough to be interesting is also going to be challenging enough to cause at least someone to avoid it.

5. Gil-cost allows players to make decisions about gil management in advance of a character being injured, which adds another layer to game-related decisionmaking, whereas per-battle restrictions are an unavoidable penalty.  Personally, I think that more nuanced gil management would add a lot to FFT, where I often myself flooded in cash anyway due to my farming tendencies. 

6. Neither per-battle nor per-gil restrictions actually force a wider roster of characters from the player, since both can quickly be recovered from with farming, and per-gil is more nuanced.  If you really wanted to force a wider roster, you'd restrict it to storyline progression and force the player to get past story levels with what remained of their roster.  Making that conform to story hacks might be problematic, so my inclination would be to stick to per-gil restrictions.





That being said, I understand that you're doing all the work on this, Choto, I respect your right to make decisions about it, and I'll be psyched to play around with whatever you put together.

[nitwit]

6. Neither per-battle nor per-gil restrictions actually force a wider roster of characters from the player, since both can quickly be recovered from with farming, and per-gil is more nuanced.  If you really wanted to force a wider roster, you'd restrict it to storyline progression and force the player to get past story levels with what remained of their roster.  Making that conform to story hacks might be problematic, so my inclination would be to stick to per-gil restrictions.

Story progression could work if it's limited to generics maybe?

[Pride]

September 4, 2014
Treasure Box Upgrade by Xifanie

Description:
As it stands, if a unit turns into a treasure box, it will pick any of the equipped item to be chosen as the reward. If no items are equipped, a chemist item is randomly generated.
The idea would be to give monsters and generic humans new drops that would be based on their level. The higher the level, the least likely to randomly get a lower level item.

For example, these chocobos would only ever drop one of those items.:

Chocobo:
Potion (lvl 1)
Phoenix Down (lvl 13)
White Robe (lvl 26)
Feather Mantle (lvl 50)

Discussion:
I was wondering about how to have the item randomly generated; here's just and idea.
Level 1 to 12: 1/1 Potion
Level 13: 12/13 Potion, 1/13 Phoenix Down
Level 26: 12/26 Potion, 13/26 Phoenix Down, 1/26 White Robe
Level 50: 12/50 Potion, 13/26 Phoenix Down, 24/50 White Robe, 1/50 Feather Mantle

So I'm gonna do this one. Should human units still give off equipment based treasures, or treasures based off of their job? Should I do the second suggestion where the items randomize on level or go with the original idea? Or something else?

[Raijinili]

On avoiding player resets as a design principle.

When playing FFTA (for those wackado people that do so) do people reset every time a unit has to go to jail for breaking a law? I dont see it as much that much different of a concept.

I did, because there are permanent penalties for breaking the law, and I couldn't be arsed to keep track of which ones did what. Some penalties took away stats (which are limited), while others take away items (and I don't think it excludes unique items, let alone ones you can't just buy again).

I also reset on deaths in Rondo of Swords because it halves the stats of an injured character, and I can't recover before the next story battle, where I might need them.

4. Using the "will someone reset" standard ultimately results in making no changes at all, since any change that is impactful enough to be interesting is also going to be challenging enough to cause at least someone to avoid it.

The first example above is about permanent loss of a limited resource (collection-type player). The second is about withholding resources when I (might have) needed them to progress, or to gather more resources, or to prevent more punishment (scared player, or player that thinks they need all the options, or player that doesn't like losing control).

Basically, if you don't want to have the player reset, the time+effort lost for a single reset should be obviously of greater value what the reset will recover in terms of resources. (The "obvious" is important: Decisions are made on what is known, not what is true. It doesn't have to be true, but it does have to be "obviously true".) Meaning, instead of resetting and replaying, you can beat the battle and then spend that time+effort from not resetting to regain at least that much resource. And the value of resources scales up with difficulty.

So if you care about player resets, any punishment you give should either be small, or they should be able to recover in an obvious way that doesn't cost as much time+effort as reaching some part of the battle. For example, recovering injuries by walking back and forth, or paying gil, if gil doesn't feel (back to that "obviously true" again) like a limited resource.

Or you can just forget about caring whether players reset. But there is a way to care about it and still make changes.

[Kaijyuu]

You need a reasonable percentage of player resets to shoot for. Someone is going to reset if they don't get a critical hit right when they want. Someone is going to play as if loading a previous save is impossible.

If you don't want the player to reset and 30% of your players reset to avoid your silly punishment, then it's probably too tedious and annoying. You should probably shoot for < 5%.

If you feel resetting is perfectly fine and a large portion of your players actually do reset the game, then your punishment may as well be a game over. Why not actually make it a game over? Make resetting itself less tedious and annoying (like having a restart battle option) and have whatever the fuck absurd punishment you want.


If you want to actually make an interesting system you need to think about player resets. Making some intricate system with the expectation that most people will just avoid it means you're goddamn masturbatory in your design since no one cares about your system other than you.

[Angel]

Some valid points here. Consider Disgaea 3 - the first chapter alone has such a harsh difficulty curve that it requires 10+ hours of just grinding to get through and have only one of your ten characters survive. In this instance, nobody in their right mind is going to keep resetting until everybody lives. Healing HP et al is far cheaper than reviving a dead character, with the cost increasing according to level and stat growth, and many times I was left with party members I simply couldn't revive because I didn't have the HL to do so. Resetting would have been stupid, because the results would be no different each time, unless I reset to spend another 30 hours grinding, which is dead boring.

Vanilla FFT obviously does not have this degree of difficulty, so to implement the feature in vanilla, I'd really prefer to see it paired with a hack to reduce the countdown until death from 3 to 2, or possibly 1, for it to reach that optimum point of, "man, forget playing that battle again, I'll just deal with the consequences". For a more difficult mod, the hack can stand on its own (imagine it being in 1.3, for example). I'd rather be temporarily inconvenienced and build up a swiss army knife party roster to compensate, fighting through a few battles until I have the gil to heal up the injured party member(s), because it's much less tedious than resetting until everybody survives.

tl;dr: The hack is great and will stand on its own with whatever punishment options are implemented, though it will work better with increased difficulty.

... And I can't believe I just stood up in favor of increased difficulty...