Skip to Content
 

RPS-9 Yes or no?

26 replies [Last post]
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 20:52
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

I posted up an RPS-17 used by Pokemon TCG (http://www.bgdf.com/image/pokemon-guide).

My question is concerning an RPS-9 (http://www.umop.com/rps9.htm).

I know Pokemon uses a RPS-17 which is quite difficult to remember. So my question is, although the RPS-9 is smaller, it is still nearly impossible to remember the various rules.

But because I am working on a "video game" (not a card game), I was wondering that even if players don't remember the RPS-9 rules, the computer would take care of matches such that players would just see the end results...

In the game the RPS-9 will be used based on RANDOM opponents. So a player can not strategize about what unit he should play to counter his opponent, it's a question of luck.

I don't know if I explained everything clearly or not! :(

But my dilemma is that should I implement a RPS-9 (which is rather complicated) considering the rules to the RPS-9 would be handled by the computer (rules)?

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 21:07
#1
Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
I think it has to become a

I think it has to become a question of choice and specialization. For a TCG many factors like cards owned would influence how much of the relationships you need to remember. Now if the outcomes are pure binary and the player can field the full range of choice in a deck, then the breadth of knowledge needed would be high. It seems even in Pokemon that you have costs associated with a card that is specifically stronger against another element.

As long as there is an effective knowledge ramp up with development of expertise, I don't see a problem. But if you have to know it all to play at all strategically, then it seems excessive and cuts off strategy in favor of knowledge thus limiting new player accessibility.

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 21:28
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Better than an RPS-9

Corsaire wrote:
...As long as there is an effective knowledge ramp up with development of expertise, I don't see a problem. But if you have to know it all to play at all strategically, then it seems excessive and cuts off strategy in favor of knowledge thus limiting new player accessibility.

I understand (it needs to be somewhat progressive).

Ok... How about another scenario? Given that the reason I wanted to use the RPS-9 was to somehow order the races with respect to each other.

Considering I have 9 races, 3 Good, 3 Neutral and 3 Evil, how would you go about setting up the order of the races? Meaning if I have High Elves (White - Life) that are good, who would they have an upper hand over?

Here are my races:

Good

1. Humans (Blue - Holy)
2. Mountain Dwarves (Yellow - Thunder)
3. High Elves (White - Life)

Neutral

4. Wood Elves (Green - Earth)
5. Dark Elves (Magenta - Cursed)
6. Gnomes (Grey - Machines)

Evil

7. Orcs (Red - Fire)
8. Giants (Cyan - Frost)
9. Undead (Black - Death)

So what I would want to know, would there be another way (better one) to determine who beats who (aside from using an RPS-9)???

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 22:05
#3
JewellGames
JewellGames's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/03/2012
Displayed weakness

A small aside...

Would it hurt to have little "strong against"/"weak against" icons next to the attack of the ability like so? This reinforces the veterans' knowledge and helps the newcomers learn the matchups.

It may not work for you but you could have an RPS -6 among the good/bad and an RPS-3 among the neutrals.

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 22:21
#4
Corsaire
Corsaire's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2013
If conflict is resolved one

If conflict is resolved one to one binary, I don't see how you escape RPS9.

If it is just one flavor of the races, and there are other characteristics and statistics. I would work it thematically and balance using other characteristics. Like giants would have a high say strength stat, but no racial bonuses. However, gnomes and dwarves are strong against them because of targetting or such. Whereas undead are strong against neutrals and weak against good. By going thematic, a player's learning curve leverages their existing knowledge base.

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 23:00
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Logic first, I guess :P

I don't know if I can resolve this *nicely* using the theme. Why because saying all Evil is weak to Good is way to simple. It could be an RPS-3 where "Good beats Evil beats Neutral beats Good". Would be easy to remember... but not logical.

Specifically certain things are obvious like "Humans (Blue and Holy) could effectively beat Undead (Black and Death)". But "Giants (Cyan and Frost) could beat Humans (Blue and Holy)"!

I think the RPS-9 will force me to try to balance the races equally since each race will beat 4 races and will be beaten by 4 races (and tie with itself).

I wanted to use the RPS-9 instead of Initiative. So basically what this means is that the player who "beats" his opponent means that the unit is ATTACKING his opponent. Sometimes with stats that will not matter. For example the opponent has very high Fortitude and is very resistant to physical attacks (melee).

Obviously there are Support units that can weaken such a unit, etc.

I think I'll try out the RPS-9 and see who beats who. Then I'll see if things look logical or not...

Top
Sat, 03/01/2014 - 23:08
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Thanks for the idea - I can make use of it

JewellGames wrote:
Would it hurt to have little "strong against"/"weak against" icons next to the attack of the ability like so? This reinforces the veterans' knowledge and helps the newcomers learn the matchups.

The problem with this solution is that it works for simpler RPSs. In an RPS-5 you can almost remember all the ways to win. It's when it gets higher where remembering can be a challenge.

If I was to use this, I would have eight (8) icons in addition to the stats. That's a lot. The good thing is this is a "video game" not a CCG or Card Game, so I can put the symbols when you select the unit...

For the most part it is somewhat useless because match-ups are RANDOM. You place you unit and the opponent places the opposing unit facing it. Neither side knows what unit the opponent has played.

Where it becomes interesting is when the playing field of units (in the first row - melee units) is revealed and then players play their support units. Here is where all the strategy appears: given your available units and active abilities, you place your units in opposition to the melee units (to counter) the attacks or to add protection such a auras, boons, etc.

But remember the opponent will also be strategizing and will play the best possible support units to try to win the battle.

Top
Sun, 03/02/2014 - 10:03
#7
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Use something like

Use something like this?

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/023/c/d/lotr_alignment_chart_by_a...

2 RPS systems intervened. Having:
Good beats Evil beats Neutral beats Good
(Which is actually true and logic)

Lawful beats Neutral beats Chaotic beats Lawful
(You could shift with these, but to me it feels logic)

Does every race really have to beat 4 and be defeated by 4? It could also be equal to 2 other races.

If you want players to have a better overview for the 9. Put them in a table instead.

Top
Sun, 03/02/2014 - 21:45
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
How does it work???

X3M wrote:
...2 RPS systems intervened...

Thanks X3M that's pretty cool!!! 2 RPS system would be very possible AND logical! I will re-work the races but definitely it seems that this 2 RPS systems (2x RPS-3s) will simplify things instead of using an RPS-9...

I REALLY LIKE this idea! It's super.

I created the table with the 2 RPS systems and I think for the most part it works out:

Good

1. Humans > Lawful (Blue - Holy)
2. Mountain Dwarves > Chaotic (Yellow - Thunder)
3. High Elves > Neutral (White - Life)

Neutral

4. Wood Elves > Neutral (Green - Earth)
5. Dark Elves > Lawful (Magenta - Cursed)
6. Gnomes > Chaotic (Grey - Machines)

Evil

7. Orcs > Chaotic (Red - Fire)
8. Giants > Neutral (Cyan - Frost)
9. Undead > Lawful (Black - Death)

But now how do I determine who beats who?

#1 = Good beats Evil beats Neutral beats Good
#2 = Lawful beats Neutral beats Chaotic beats Lawful

---Start of Examples---

Example #1 = [Good] 1. Humans : Lawful vs. [Evil] 7. Orcs : Chaotic...

[Good] beats [Evil] BUT Chaotic beats Lawful!

Is this 1 Point vs. 1 Point = Tie (no winner)???

Example #2 = [Good] 1. Humans : Lawful vs. [Evil] 7. Undead : Lawful...

[Good] beats [Evil] BUT Lawful ties(?) Lawful(?!)

Is this 1 Point vs. 0 Points = Winner 1. Humans(?!)

---End of Examples---

I think the method will work once I understand how to determine the winners from the 2 RPS systems! :)

Many thanks for the help (and idea)!

Top
Sun, 03/02/2014 - 22:52
#9
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Still working through

Okay so I am building a table (sort of) based on my understanding.

There are a couple of observations (noteworthy of inspection):

1. Human vs. Human is a tie (0 vs. 0). This is logical and signifies a TRUE tie, no winner and therefore no battle

2. Human vs. Wood Elves is also a tie (1 vs. 1). Here is where things get interesting. Although it's a tie, BOTH sides should battle each other...

This is turning out to be quite an interesting solution. I had never thought that ties would encourage both sides to do battle. And yet using this system they do!

This is similar to:

3. Humans vs. Orcs is another tie (1 vs. 1). It makes 100% sense that both sides should battle each other. They are both polar opposites in terms of races.

Another interesting one is:

4. Humans vs. Gnomes (0 vs. 2). This means that the Gnomes attack should be DOUBLE (2x)... Something I had not considered either.

The RPS-9 was rather boring in that 4 win/4 lose and 1 tie. This dual system of RPS-3 opens up new and exciting options!

All in all this is sort of what the general feel of it is:

-In 1 case there is no battle (Humans vs. Humans)
-In 2 cases Humans battle their opponent
-In 2 cases Humans defend against their opponent
-In 2 cases Humans battle AND defend against their opponent
-In 1 case Humans do double (2x) the damage
-In 1 case Humans take double (2x) the damage

Much more complex of a result... I'm sure I'll need to put the result into a table (somehow). But from doing the exercise of calculating sides (winners/losers), this dual RPS system is very exciting... I had not imagined such a way to do battle.

Top
Mon, 03/03/2014 - 01:58
#10
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Some results

Here are some of the interesting results in the tabulations of the various odds:

  • Humans strong against Giants
  • Dwarves strong against Undead
  • High Elves strong against Orcs
  • Wood Elves strong against Dwarves
  • Dark Elves strong against High Elves
  • Gnomes strong against Humans
  • Orcs strong against Dark Elves
  • Giants strong against Gnomes
  • Undead strong against Wood Elves

They're not perfect (like I would have like Humans-Holy to be strong against Undead-Death) but it's still pretty cool! :D

Top
Mon, 03/03/2014 - 10:36
#11
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Happy to see that you are

Happy to see that you are happy.

So what is the score of the humans against undead?
1, that is still pretty good.

If you want to change it. You need to change the humans, or the undead.
I find the undead being lawful, weird.
Perhaps switching them with the giants would do better.
Then you have the score of 2 for humans versus undead.

I also always had a feel for humans>gnomes>giants>humans
Where gnomes are to small and to fast for the giants to be dealt with.
Gnomes would be weak to humans as how humans are weak to giants. This is automatically if you indeed switch giants with undead. The same for dwarfs, who suddenly seem to be the real specialists in beating the giants.

Giants then also are good against wood elves. Wrecking those tree's and such. No place for the wood elves to hide.
And the undead, very deadly for the gnomes.

Yeah, switch undead with giants. My suggestion.

Anyway, I also suggest you make the table with the effects.
Then you start adding the races to your taste without looking at their types, only to the effects. And when you look back to what they are. If you sort of end up with the same, it is good.

Humans can be anything, not necessary good and lawful. Keep that in mind.

-----------------------------

Where did I get the idea of combining?
Most common combinations of RPS systems in RTS:
- Depending on speed, range and projectile speed
- Depending on damage versus armor
- Depending on ground/air/other dimensions

3 RPS systems combined.
Warcraft 2 has all 3.
Some games have the damage versus armor twice like:
Low armor/High armor and Organic/Mechanic

Top
Tue, 03/04/2014 - 00:22
#12
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Ok so minor changes

Here is the revised data:

  • Humans strong against Undead
  • Dwarves strong against Giants
  • High Elves strong against Orcs
  • Wood Elves strong against Dwarves
  • Dark Elves strong against Humans
  • Gnomes strong against High Elves
  • Orcs strong against Gnomes
  • Giants strong against Wood Elves
  • Undead strong against Dark Elves

Seems *more* logical - but the alignments don't look as nice on paper (who cares - the AI will do all the computation anyways)!

Note: Those are only the "strong" relationships or double damage (2x damage). I think *theme-wise* they are more harmonious.

Here is the revised tabular information regarding the races:

Good

1. Humans > Lawful (Blue - Holy)
2. Mountain Dwarves > Chaotic (Yellow - Thunder)
3. High Elves > Neutral (White - Life)

Neutral

4. Wood Elves > Neutral (Green - Earth)
5. Dark Elves > Chaotic (Magenta - Cursed)
6. Gnomes > Lawful (Grey - Machines)

Evil

7. Orcs > Chaotic (Red - Fire)
8. Giants > Lawful (Cyan - Frost)
9. Undead > Neutral (Black - Death)

As you can see I have made some corrections so that the relationships seem more natural!

I also used the SAME two (2) rules:

#1 = Good beats Evil beats Neutral beats Good
#2 = Lawful beats Neutral beats Chaotic beats Lawful

Top
Wed, 03/05/2014 - 12:25
#13
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quick comments: I saw the

Quick comments: I saw the RPS-9 and RPS-7 diagram and there is no ties.

I often use something similar to what would be RPS-5. But each elements can counter 1 other element and be countered by 1 element. So there is always 2 elements that are not affected at all. It's always reasier to remember. For example:

A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> A

In depends on the type of game. If one suite must trumph all the time, then this might not be a good solution since you do not want ties.

Magic the gathering and other stuff, use a counter diagram and a support diagram. So for each element:

- 1 element to counter
- 1 element to be countered
- 1 element to support
- 1 element to get supported

Top
Wed, 03/05/2014 - 23:15
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
There ARE ties?!

larienna wrote:
Quick comments: I saw the RPS-9 and RPS-7 diagram and there is no ties.

Ties are when both players choose the IDENTICAL element.

larienna wrote:
It's always reasier to remember. For example:

A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> A

I misunderstood the system. Basically A -> B, E -> A and the other 2 matches are ties. Correct?

This is too simple, I have nine (9) races! I don't want to lower it down to five (5)... Thematically the races are SOLID. The alignment may seem a little bit "fudged" but still pretty GOOD.

larienna wrote:
Magic the gathering and other stuff, use a counter diagram and a support diagram. So for each element:

- 1 element to counter
- 1 element to be countered
- 1 element to support
- 1 element to get supported

Well that's sort of what the two (2) RPS systems do. Except it's not 1 of each. Specifically:

- 2 Attack
- 2 Defend
- 2 Attack & Defend
- 1 True tie (no battle)
- 1 does Double Damage
- 1 takes Double Damage

I have also been re-thinking the battle mechanic. At first I thought that melee troops would battle their opponents immediately... But this seemed a little bit random.

So instead I will let players place their melee troops, then their support troops and then a melee battle ensues. Lastly players will be able to try to heal wounded soldiers (melee) and cause more damage to the opponent (via active abilities).

The resulting number of rounds is:

1. Melee placement
2. Support placement
3. Melee battle
4. Active Abilities: Heal & Wound
5. Soul crystal match

After the battle (in round #4), each player can heal/revive troops depending on the damage dealt. Players may also inflict more damage to the opponent using "Active Abilities".

All this of course depends on the troops left on the battle field.

Round #5 is an optional round in which certain crystals can assume another crystal. So if you have Gnomes (Grey - Machines), they have their own special ability of mutating to any other crystal.

So they can for example become Red (like Orcs - Fire) or Blue (like Humans - Holy). Gnomes are the only race that can do this, because of the machines they build. Each machine can be built to match another crystal!

I'm really excited about this game... Obviously I am doing a lot of things that I cannot do with traditional tabletop games. But that's the point, if you are going to design a Puzzle-like game (like Bejeweled) that has RPG elements to it (like Puzzle Quest) that doesn't use pattern matching but placement instead, you might as well expand it to do things only a video game can do! :)

Top
Thu, 03/06/2014 - 01:16
#15
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The strong vs. weak

The strong vs. weak rules go something like this:

Humans -> Undead -> Dark Elves -> Humans
Dwarves -> Giants -> Wood Elves -> Dwarves
High Elves -> Orcs -> Gnomes -> High Elves

That's for Double damage.

I'm not sure how to *document* the other RPS-3 relationships?! It's too complicated for me... Maybe I need a table. Even with a table I'm not sure how to document it.

Good thing this is a video game... All I need is to let the computer rules figure out who battles who during the melee round! :D

Update: I guess it would be SMART to somehow document the rules (in tabular form). Why? Well it would go a long way to help players know why of their units will do battle.

Otherwise it will be pretty darn hard to determine who fights who (for a human - not the computer)... All of the game strategy is knowing who is going to battle who and figure out when to use counter abilities to increase your odds of winning the entire battle!

Top
Thu, 03/06/2014 - 12:35
#16
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Something like

Something like this?

http://i47.tinypic.com/157yk20.png

But then you have 9 vs 9 instead of 6 vs 6, and the left side is the same as the up side.

% is not nessesary.
You might as well use x2, /2, 1
or a yes, no, double kind of comments.

Please let me know when your game is ready. I would like to play.

Top
Thu, 03/06/2014 - 14:50
#17
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More on the game

X3M wrote:
Something like this?

No that's a regular table. That I can manage. What I have difficulty with is the point system. Let me *try* to explain:

1. Let's say we want to compare Human combat rules
2. Humans are Good and Lawful
3. Their colour is Blue
4. Their magic is Holy

That's a lot of information to put into table headings... But that's not the only problem. Let me continue:

A. Humans vs. Humans is a True tie = 0.
B. Humans vs. Dwarves is 0 to 1. Dwarves will attack Humans.

So I need to divide the cells such that Dwarves vs. Humans = 1 to 0 AND such that Humans vs. Dwarves = 0 to 1... There are two (2) sets of values that need to get stored and they need to be in the correct cell such that the relationship is CLEAR.

X3M wrote:
Please let me know when your game is ready. I would like to play.

Well X3M thank you for your vote of confidence!

Things you should know is this will be a Video Game for a Nintendo DS/DSi (not 3DS). It will also require Wi-Fi/Internet connectivity.

Gamers will be able to download the game FREE. Play is FREE also. When you create an account online (again FREE), you will be given the DEFAULT 16 Crystals/Units. You can play with these units as long and as much as you want for FREE. You can also earn 10 BONUS Crystals/Units by playing the game. Again FREE.

However if you want to have MORE Crystals/Units, you will have to buy a random set of 4 Crystals/Units. That will cost $5.00 and then you can keep them forever and play with combination of units (as you desire). There will be 16 sets of Crystals (no doubles) you can purchase for a total of $80.00 (but remember it costs $5.00 per 4 Crystal/Set, not one big chunk!) That's if you want ALL the Crystals/Units... This is in the First Edition, I may add MORE Crystals/Units if people really like the game! :)

You can also use Credit to affect the outcome of battles... This is NOT a penalty to FREE players. Why? Because if the opponent uses Credit (in the form of Active Abilities) to alter the battle, you gain Victory Points. So even if the opponent wins, you ALSO earn Victory Points (which will help improve your rank in the standings WORLDWIDE).

Since it will be Homebrew software, it will also require a Flash Cart... Basically this is a Micro SD card that is inserted into a FAKE DS/DSi ROM card.

Examples of this are: Supercard DSTwo (the best - some say) and Acekard 2i. Prices range from $30.00 to $50.00.

Listen, I have not yet bought the Flash Cart, I'm using an emulator to test/play my software (development). So I can't tell you which one is good for running my game... I'm not there YET.

But people will be able to play the game using a DS emulator also... So you can use your computer. The ONLY problem with this is that my game will force DS gamer's to use their DS/DSi like a BOOK (90 degrees). So the screen on the left will be the tactile screen and the screen on the right will display game information... What this means is if you play the game using a DS emulator, the orientation will be WRONG. Sort of a pain in the butt - but it's meant for a Nintendo DS/DSi!

Like I said this is a two (2) year project... Which I may or may not finish (I hope I will thought)!

Thanks for your interest!

Top
Thu, 03/06/2014 - 15:09
#18
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I hope...

I hope that "Tradewars - Homeworld" gets published this should give me enough of a bankroll to produce the artwork for the Video Game ("Legendary Souls - Crystal Heroes" - Thanks Rich!!!)

I really don't want to have to deal with Publishers - it's a slow process... That's why the Video Game will be Homebrew. I can do it all myself (programming) and leave the artwork for my current artist. I also know of a good graphic designer who said he would be available for freelance work.

But the major part is getting the programming done. The Nintendo DS/DSi is a complicated BEAST. No very obvious - I am getting some help on-line from another developer. There is a lot to learn, a buggy and limited functionality set/libraries and various pieces to each part...

Top
Thu, 03/06/2014 - 15:21
#19
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
About the dual RPS system

How the dual RPS system will affect the game is like:

If a Human is paired with a Dwarf for battle, the Dwarf will be the attacker. The Human will be the defender. According to the stats of both units, the battle will result in a loss of Souls Points (SPs).

The best a unit can hope for is to be the "attacker" or do "double damage". Otherwise the losing odds are "defender", "attacker and defender" or take "double damage"!

Top
Fri, 03/07/2014 - 01:00
#20
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Here is the BIG table

This is the best I could do. If somebody knows another method to create such a table please let me know (another format).

You can click on the image to see the COMPLETE table.

Note: To read/understand the chart:

1x = Normal Attack, 2x = Double Attack, 0 = Defend

This shows clearly when units will attack/defend. Like I said, it's not the prettiest chart but it does the job.

Update: Tomorrow I will see if I can make it into a RPS-9 with different lines... It may be possible and easier to visualize (MAYBE).

I have been simply drawing on a piece of paper and the RPS-9 looks UGLY! It may seems cleaner but there are SO MANY arrows. I'll see if I attempt to computerize it or not (tomorrow). Just wish there was a better way to visualize the relationships! :(

Top
Fri, 03/07/2014 - 12:50
#21
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Suggestions

Thought I replied to your last post.
Here is another try.

How about scrapping the second number.
Then each number is displayed only once and you don't have those ugly diagonals.

Further you could add colors to each square.

Red (0 vs 2)
Orange (0 vs 1)
White (0 vs 0)
Yellow (1 vs 1)
Green (1 vs 0)
Blue (2 vs 0)

Top
Fri, 03/07/2014 - 19:48
#22
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
RSP-9 Diagram

Here is the relationship diagram.

It does allow for decent viewing of the relationships (easier than the table IMHO).

You can click on the RPS-9 for a larger view of the diagram.

Explanations:

Black = Normal Attack, Blue = Attack/Defend, Red = Double Attack.

Top
Mon, 03/24/2014 - 22:38
#23
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Comments on the RPS-9

I bumped this thread because I didn't get any comments about the RPS-9...

I was wondering what designer thought?! Is it too complicated?

Do you think "documenting" (or stating) the rules on a card would be possible?

Top
Tue, 03/25/2014 - 05:49
#24
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Well, with 9 or more in a RPS

Well, with 9 or more in a RPS system. Table works better. Because you can look things up more easily.

A flow picture is very confusing if it becomes to big. You need to find both choices and the correct line in between (There are more to choose from). Then you need to look where the arrow points too.

With a table you still have to search for both choices. But they intersect in the table. And you immediately have the result. And you can expand the table in the future as well if needed.

Flow picture: more confusing, but that is my opinion.

Others should reply.

Top
Tue, 03/25/2014 - 06:08
#25
JewellGames
JewellGames's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/03/2012
I like the chart as a quick

I like the chart as a quick glance reference. But, a table is easier to read when I really want to see my unit's information. Pokemon has both so I see no reason not to provide both.

Also, how are you embedding images? Normal html img syntax does not work for me and the formatting info makes no mention of images.

Top
Sun, 09/06/2015 - 11:57
#26
andymakespasta
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2015
The chart is better, but

The chart is better, but don't split the boxes into two.
The chart is basically symmetrical, so you can halve the numbers.
Have the rows be attacker, and columns be defender.

At least that's what most pokemon RPS charts do.

Also, pokemon RPS is intuitive, and have story explanations to help remember.

For example, fighting type is weak to physic because brain over brawn.
Fighting type also has a "heroic" theme, so fighting beats dark.
Bugs beat physic can be explained because buzzing bugs breaks concentration.

It might be a stretch sometimes, but it helps memory.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut