从用户体验的角度谈多数RPG战斗系统中的缺陷

原文作者：Benjamin Wolf 译者：Megan Shieh

在为RPG创建战斗系统时，多数开发者首先会考虑到这个问题：“游戏中的各个角色会有哪些优势和弱点”。

四大元素系统

基本的战斗系统之一是，带有水、火、风、土的“四大元素系统”——水比火厉害，火比风厉害等等。

这一系统适用于元素不多的游戏，因为玩家几乎立刻就会明白哪些元素能对敌人造成更大伤害。

在现实生活中，不同元素的相互作用是众所周知的，因此开发者可以在不提供大量教程的情况下使用这些现实生活中的元素。但如果将这个系统进行延伸的话，就会导致交叉优势，进而增加系统的复杂性。

例如，火元素不仅比风厉害，而且还能伤害大自然和虫子；而对水、冰、岩石和金属的抵抗力却很弱。这为玩家提供了更多的战略选项，但却没那么好理解。玩家可能会被绕晕掉——水和冰的区别是什么？火和熔浆的区别又是什么？如果每一个元素都有多个优势和弱点，那么玩家犯错的几率就会急剧增加，甚至是在游戏后期也会犯类似错误，因为需要考虑到的优势和弱点实在是太多了。这种做法不会为游戏提供更大的战略深度，只会增加复杂性。

武器类型系统

另一个常见的系统是“武器类型系统”。在这个系统中，特定的武器对应特定的敌人会造成更大伤害。例如，“一把利剑”对穿盔甲的敌人只能造成很小的伤害，但是对穿皮质铠甲的敌人却能造成很大伤害。

pocket Lengend (from mmorpg)

这个系统的基本原理与“元素系统”相似，只不过是用武器代替了元素。但相比之下，“武器类型系统”对玩家而言更难理解——虽然人人都知道水能灭火，但不是人人都知道在战斗时要用什么武器才能取得优势。

与“元素系统”相比，要弄懂“武器类型系统”需要花上更多时间；而且如果将这个系统进行延展的话，很快就会把玩家弄晕。虽然玩家可能明白剑、锤子和匕首的区别，但是茅和戟的区别又有几个人懂？

魔法效应系统

最后是“魔法效应系统”，包括诅咒、buff、毒药等。这类系统在面对敌人时也带有某种优势或弱点——用诅咒法术来削弱重型盔甲的防御能力，可以起到和“用利剑砍盔甲”一样的效果。

“元素系统”和“武器类型系统”时刻都有着对应每一个敌人和角色的优势和弱点。而“魔法效应系统”的优势则只能对特定的敌人持续几分/几秒钟，这类魔法效应通常不存在弱点。例如，用诅咒法术削弱对方盔甲的防御能力意味着你提高了“利剑”的伤害值（弱点变为正常状态），但是由于盔甲类型没有改变，所以重型武器仍然会对敌人造成较多伤害（优势仍然是优势）。

混合多个系统可能会产生的问题

“我的游戏包含了武器和法术（四大元素和魔法效应），所以我要把这三个机制结合起来，为玩家提供一个极具深度的战斗系统。”

这个想法很好，但做出来的效果多半不尽人意。

这些系统基本上都是一样的，然而同时引入三个系统不仅不会增加游戏的深度，反而会增加游戏的复杂性。这类游戏要求玩家同时记住三个系统以及系统内所有项目（角色）的优势和弱点。而当你推出新的武器或元素时，对应的系统也会随之不断扩大。最终玩家会偏爱一个系统，而且只原意使用这一个系统，因为他们不原意/懒得学习其余的系统。这样看来，为战斗系统提供更多深度的目标其实并没有实现。

比方说，一位玩家偏爱“武器类型系统”，因此TA很清楚哪些武器可以对抗特定类型的盔甲，而且在这方面变得很厉害。在这种情况下，另外两个系统就被忽略了。虽然同时利用三个系统可能会对敌人造成多一点伤害，但这样一来，玩家花在学习上的时间上就会多过实际游玩的时间，因此普通玩家会觉得不值。这种设计迎合的是少数玩家（游戏邦注：原意花时间去钻研的玩家），而不是广大受众。

此外，如果同时采用了三个系统，那么设计师很可能会设计出一个需要结合三种系统才能打败的敌人。当普通玩家遇到这种敌人的时候往往会感到沮丧，同时也会觉得游戏是不公平的，因为这个敌人实在是太难打了。TA可能会忘记掉其他两个系统的存在，或者结合三个系统尝试一次然后失败了，这就导致了糟糕的体验，致使玩家对这款游戏产生负面情绪，然后索性一走了之。

问题是，为什么这款游戏非得采用多个系统？多个系统结合带来的到底是深度还是复杂性？

与其采用多个系统，不如专注于一个系统，再适当结合其他游戏机制（比如解谜元素），当你拼凑出适量的元素类型以后再把它们列入到优势和弱点表格中，这么做可能会带来事半功倍的效果。

不必要的“惊喜”

当玩家到达某个地方的时候，他们可能玩到了10级或者20级，那么问题来了：该不该把敌人适配到同等级别？还是把这些敌人的级别和属性设为固定值？在这场战斗中，各种优势是如何发挥的？当玩家使用了正确的优势或武器时，是该让TA轻轻松松地获胜，还是得再给TA一些挑战？

当然，这些问题没有固定答案，因为这取决于设计者想要为玩家创造的体验，但有些做法明摆着是不理想的。

比方说开发者采用了一个“四大元素系统”，并在一个以水为中心的区域放出敌人，这么做是非常好的。因为玩家不仅了解“元素系统”的运作方式，而且还了解特定的主题意味着什么。因为这个主题，TA会认为自己正在对抗的是水BOSS。

但如果TA对抗的不是水BOSS而是风BOSS呢？

这时玩家肯定会感到愤怒和迷惑，TA会想：明明是水的主题，怎么莫名其妙冒出个风BOSS。

设计师可能是想玩个花样，给玩家一个惊喜，但这种做法可以说是已经违背了这些系统的基本原则。整个体验应该是条理清晰的，不要给玩家来个（可能）毫无防备的惊喜，这样玩家才能进一步提高自己在“元素系统”中所学的特定技能。

此外，当大BOSS对玩家所学系统免疫的时候，整个系统就会分崩离析。

关卡中的“小型”敌人应该是用来学习这个系统并锻炼所学技能的，它们一般不会很难打，而且可以在不利用优势和弱点的情况下被打败。

在击败一堆这样的对手之后，玩家会希望BOSS难打一点，这样在TA发现敌人的弱点并想出如何利用这些弱点时，会觉得自己很聪明并为此感到满足。但如果大BOSS不属于这个“元素系统”，并且还对该系统中的所有优势免疫，那么玩家就失去了这种满足感，得到的反而是挫败感，因为TA刚学到的东西根本用不上。

尤其是采用“魔法效应系统”的时候，设计师必须考虑到这一点。如果魔法不能对任何大BOSS产生作用，那整个系统就只是摆设罢了。这种设计能对玩家产生的唯一影响就是“直接忽略掉魔法效应系统的存在”，因为这个系统并不能在关键时刻带来任何帮助，所以何必浪费时间去学？

总结

作为开发者，当你在创建一个带有优势和弱点的RPG战斗系统时，需要回答自己以下几个问题：

在我的战斗系统中，应该有几个优势、几个弱点？2个可能太少了，但20个又太复杂。

为什么我要把几个不同的系统混合在一起？这样做能给游戏带来什么好处？

我现在创建的到底是深度还是复杂性？

我采用的系统在关键战斗中能否帮得上忙？它是否需要在更激烈的战斗中为玩家提供优势？

这些问题的答案能够帮助你避免无聊或令玩家感到困惑、愤怒的RPG战斗场景。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Many RPGs use an Advantage / Disadvantage System for their battles and while this offers the strategical and tactical depth that an RPG needs, it also delivers problems that need to be solved by the designer.

Different types of systems

The first question that will occur is: “What kind of advantages and disadvantages will my game feature”.

One of the basic systems is the Element System with water, fire, wind and earth

Water will do more damage against fire, fire will do more damage against wind and so on.

This system works well with a small number of elements, because players will almost instantly understand that the increased damage is coming from an advantage against the enemy’s element.
How different elements behave towards each other is widely known outside of games and can therefore be used without offering a big tutorial or learning curve. However, increasing this system will lead to cross advantages that will add complexity to the system.

Suddenly fire is not only strong against wind, but also against nature and bug – while being weak against water, ice, rock and metal. It gives more strategical playground, but at the price of understandability. Players might get confused, where the difference between water and ice is or fire and magma. With every element having multiple advantages and disadvantages, the chance that the player makes mistakes (even late in the game) due to the number of elements he has to consider, increases drastically. Does an increase in elements in this system not further enhance the system itself or offer more strategical depth, it only adds complexity.

Another common system is the Weapon Type System. Here specific weapons deal more damage against specific enemies. Sharp swords for example do little damage against armored enemies, but increased damage against leather type enemies.

The basics of this system are similar to the Element System, only with weapons instead of elements, but also slightly harder to understand for the player. While everybody knows that water extinguishes fire, the proper counter to a sharp weapon might not immediately be known.
This system requires more time for the player to learn to use it properly. Additionally, increasing this system will lead to confusion pretty fast. While players might understand the difference between a sword, a hammer and a dagger the difference between a spear and a halberd might already be harder to grasp.

The last system I want to bring up is the Status Effect System with curses, buffs, poison and others. While it can be argued if this system even fits into this category or not, it offers an advantage or disadvantage over the enemy. Lowering the defense of a heavy armor type with a curse, can have the same effect as using a heavy sword against him.

The Element System and Weapon Type System are offering advantages / disadvantages against every enemy and character all the time, while the Status Effect System creates an advantage only for a period of time against a specific enemy, usually without offering the disadvantage.
For example, decreasing the defense of the heavy armor increases the damage of sharp weapons (disadvantage turned into a normal state), but since the armor type is not changing the heavy weapon will still deal more damage (advantage still advantage).

The problem of mixing systems

“My game uses weapons and magic (elemental and status effects) so, I will combine those three mechanics to offer the player a combat system with maximum depth.”

While the idea behind this sentence is good the result will probably be very different.

All those systems are basically the same. No matter if it is a fire spell against a water enemy or a sharp sword against a leather armor, when the system is stripped down to the mechanics it means for example 50% more damage against the weakness. Therefor bringing in all 3 systems is not increasing the depth but only the complexity of the game.

These systems will not add new layers on top of each other, but increase in size horizontally.

The player is asked to remember all 3 systems and all the advantages and disadvantages.

Since implementing more and more weapons or elements is easy, the size of each system will grow and grow. Eventually the player likes one system in particular and will only focus on using that, because he doesn´t want to be bothered with learning all the others.

He chooses for example the Weapon Type System and becomes a professional in choosing the right weapon against the right armor type. The other two systems are being ignored, because doing 50% more damage or 75% more damage is not offering another strategical level. He might do a bit more damage against an enemy, but at the cost of more time spent learning the system than playing the game, so the outcome does not justify the effort for the regular player.

It caters to min/max players but not to the broad audience. The goal of offering more depth to the combat system is therefore not met and since the designers wanted to use all three systems the chances are high that at one point the player will face a specific enemy that is designed to use all three systems. At that point the player gets frustrated and thinks the game is unfair, because of this powerful foe. He might have forgotten parts of the other systems or tried them out once in a bad situation and failed, which led to a bad experience with the system and him never using the system again.

The question is, why does the game need multiple systems? And does the combination offer more depth or complexity? Stripping it down to one system, but really sticking with this system and implementing it in other gameplay mechanics as well (for example puzzle solving or specific areas only to open with the right amount of element types) might offer the game more than five more elements that need to be put somewhere in the advantage / disadvantage chart.

The balance of the advantage

Balancing an RPG is always a hard task. Players might be level 10 or level 20 when reaching a certain point, and the question is always: should enemies scale with the player or should they be fixed in their level and stats? Also, how is the advantage handled in this fight. Is the fight a challenge even when using the right advantage or should it be an easy fight, when choosing the right weapon.

Of course, there is no real answer to those questions since they depend on the experience the designer is creating for the player, but there are things that are just not optimal.

Introducing an Element System for example and offering enemies throughout an area that are water focused is perfectly fine. The player does not only understand the Element System, but also the theme of the specific area. With this in mind, he will face the boss thinking he will face a Water Boss. But what if he suddenly is fighting against a Wind Boss?

That would anger and confuse the player, because he cannot see the reason behind this.
The designer might have thought of tricking the player and offering him a surprise, but that is not the intention of the system. It should rather be clear, so that he can further improve his skills in the Element System and not offer him surprises that he might not be prepared for, thanks to the rest of the level design. And when the boss is not the wrong element, but actually neutral and does not have any advantage or disadvantage at all, the whole system will fall apart.

Smaller enemies throughout a level are used to learn the system and play around with it.

They usually do not offer a challenge and can be defeated without using advantages.

After defeating a bunch of those, the player wants to have a challenge when he reaches the boss and he wants to feel satisfied and clever when figuring out what weakness his enemy has and how to exploit it. When the boss is outside of the Element System with a neutral state, the player is stripped from this satisfaction and leaves frustrated, since all his learning has been for nothing. This effect is especially important when using a Status Effect System.

The whole system is useless when every boss is immune against Status Effects.

The only effect this will have on the player is not using the Status Effect system at all, because in critical times the system will not work anyway, so why waste time on that?

Conclusion

When creating a RPG Battle System with advantages and disadvantages some questions need to be answered:

1. What feels like the right amount of advantages and disadvantages in my system? 2 might be too less but 20 is getting to complex.

2. Why do I want to mix different systems? What is it offering my gameplay?

3. Am I really creating depth or complexity?

4. Is my system useful in critical battles? Will it provide the advantage in stronger fights or can I ignore it?

Answering these questions makes the difference between a boring fight against a neutral type, non-elemental Eater in Digimon Story Cyber Sleuth and an awesome fight against the fake President in Final Fantasy 8 where the player can use the advantage of him being undead, by defeating him with heal and resurrection spells. （Source：gamasutra.com  ）