Register
Another big reason I wanted to include temporary mercenary characters was to give the main cast more people to talk to. I'm planning a Fire Emblem-like Support system in Viridia with conversations and stat boosts and everything, and mercenary characters are in on the deal too. The stat boosts won't last forever and are pretty unimportant for them, but by playing with them, they'll open up to the main characters and talk to them, and we'll learn a bit more about both parties.
Here's two general-specific instances I'm thinking of:
1) I hire a blue knight for a modest price because I've only got 3 party members so far. After some battles and exploration, I stay at the inn; the red knight (who is a main character) talks to the blue knight, and I learn that the two have known each other for quite some time - the blue knight is revealed to be the mentor of the red knight as they chat about the day they first met.
2) I hire a rancher because he's good at killing beasts, and he allows me to ride his mounts between towns for free. When he introduces himself to my armor knight, the two discover that they hail from the same country. They later discover that they actually lived in neighboring towns and never realized it, starting a new friendship.
Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:29 am 
Tue Jul 20, 2010 1:41 am
Reposting MSWs argument because it probably won't be noticed much sitting at the bottom of page 1.
ALSO, I'm going to wait until the end of the week or so, and if everyone's said theirpiece peace, I'll compile everyone's arguments into a HamsterSpeak article. If ya'll don't mind being quoted.
msw188 wrote:
Just wanted to add a bit of weight to Mogri's side.
I have a hard time imagining a scenario where, with a full party, I would willingly choose to spend money on hiring a "mercenary" to displace one of my core characters. If the mercenary is necessary, then there's no choice involved at all. If the mercenary makes the gameplay easier in the shortrun (which seems to be the fundamental idea), he cannot help but take EXP away from a core character who may be important in the long run. The key fact about this is that, as the player, I don't know whether or not the core characters will be needed, but I DO know that the mercenary won't be. So gameplay-wise, if a mercenary is not necessary, he seems to be more trouble than he is worth.
There are other, more subjective reasons as well. The core characters are the ones that the player 'gets to know'. They will, hopefully, be somewhat important to the storyline. Not to mention that they should, again hopefully, be important as characters to the player. The mercenary does not have this, and to boot, he costs money. SCREW THAT.
To play devil's advocate to Mogri's 'good' mercenary scenarios, I don't really see the reason why a core character couldn't be arranged to do the job. Why go through these balancing problems? Why force the player to decide between short-term interest versus long-term team-building stability? This is assuming the player even takes the time to try out the mercenaries, as they are optional.
I have a hard time imagining a scenario where, with a full party, I would willingly choose to spend money on hiring a "mercenary" to displace one of my core characters. If the mercenary is necessary, then there's no choice involved at all. If the mercenary makes the gameplay easier in the shortrun (which seems to be the fundamental idea), he cannot help but take EXP away from a core character who may be important in the long run. The key fact about this is that, as the player, I don't know whether or not the core characters will be needed, but I DO know that the mercenary won't be. So gameplay-wise, if a mercenary is not necessary, he seems to be more trouble than he is worth.
There are other, more subjective reasons as well. The core characters are the ones that the player 'gets to know'. They will, hopefully, be somewhat important to the storyline. Not to mention that they should, again hopefully, be important as characters to the player. The mercenary does not have this, and to boot, he costs money. SCREW THAT.
To play devil's advocate to Mogri's 'good' mercenary scenarios, I don't really see the reason why a core character couldn't be arranged to do the job. Why go through these balancing problems? Why force the player to decide between short-term interest versus long-term team-building stability? This is assuming the player even takes the time to try out the mercenaries, as they are optional.
ALSO, I'm going to wait until the end of the week or so, and if everyone's said their
Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:21 am
I think the best thing to do would be to employ strategic hiring. There could be a range of mercs available, but only a few will end up paying themselves off, and the rest, while helpful, wont help in the long run.
What I mean, is, if you're near some sort of labyrinth, a specialized theif of sorts could give you access to treasure that would overall outweigh his cost, and be helpful past his existence. Although you'd also have access to other mercs that'll make the battles easier, but in the long run wont pay themselves out.
You could be near a desert, and hiring a ranger will show the player to an otherwise hidden/obscure oasis of sorts, which could serve as a save point, inn, and maybe even offer an optional, permanent character,
My point is, basically, there should be some sort of strategy involved in picking mercenaries, because if the player's actively aware of the possibility of a merc permanently strengthening their party, they'll be more encouraged to hire. But if all mercs help in the long run, why would you even make that an option? They might as well just be incorporated as part of the plot.
I disagree with the idea of attaching the player to the mercs; If they're temporary this should be established by using minimal dialog making obvious that the merc's only in for the money.
Using mercs to flush out other characters' personalities is a great idea, though. It'll make multiple playthroughs more interesting, and you could use this as a means of teaching new, exclusive attavks that go well with the aforementioned idea/s of making a merc pay off in the long run.
What I mean, is, if you're near some sort of labyrinth, a specialized theif of sorts could give you access to treasure that would overall outweigh his cost, and be helpful past his existence. Although you'd also have access to other mercs that'll make the battles easier, but in the long run wont pay themselves out.
You could be near a desert, and hiring a ranger will show the player to an otherwise hidden/obscure oasis of sorts, which could serve as a save point, inn, and maybe even offer an optional, permanent character,
My point is, basically, there should be some sort of strategy involved in picking mercenaries, because if the player's actively aware of the possibility of a merc permanently strengthening their party, they'll be more encouraged to hire. But if all mercs help in the long run, why would you even make that an option? They might as well just be incorporated as part of the plot.
I disagree with the idea of attaching the player to the mercs; If they're temporary this should be established by using minimal dialog making obvious that the merc's only in for the money.
Using mercs to flush out other characters' personalities is a great idea, though. It'll make multiple playthroughs more interesting, and you could use this as a means of teaching new, exclusive attavks that go well with the aforementioned idea/s of making a merc pay off in the long run.
Tue Jul 20, 2010 4:52 am
Quote:
Why force the player to decide between short-term interest versus long-term team-building stability?
This is one reason why I like the idea of building relationships with the mercs and eventually being able to recruit them permanently. (Think "dating sim," minus the dating.) If you really like a merc, you should be able to get him to stick with you.
Quote:
you could use this as a means of teaching new, exclusive attavks that go well with the aforementioned idea/s of making a merc pay off in the long run.
Now this would definitely be a cool addition. The mercs are more experienced than your party; it makes sense that hanging around them is bound to teach you some new tricks.
Mega Tact v1.1
Super Penguin Chef
Wizard Blocks
Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:46 pm
I also really like the idea of mercenaries teaching your core characters techniques, and I really doubt I would have thought of that on my own.
I am Srime
I am Srime
Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:22 pm
Quote:
My argument is that the long term damage is much less than people are making it out to be, considering that the purpose is to make parts of the game easier.
If the mercenary makes the gameplay easier in the shortrun (which seems to be the fundamental idea), he cannot help but take EXP away from a core character who may be important in the long run. The key fact about this is that, as the player, I don't know whether or not the core characters will be needed, but I DO know that the mercenary won't be. So gameplay-wise, if a mercenary is not necessary, he seems to be more trouble than he is worth.
The long term damage is that a character ends up a bit underleveled, but that isn't anything that can't be solved by spending five to ten minutes with your three characters that did get EXP to help the fourth get back up to speed.
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb
Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:32 pm
Although Newbie's argument may often be the case, it is not necessarily true. As the player, I don't know how much EXP the merc is going to soak up, because even if he tells me how long he is staying, I don't know what that means in terms of potential levelling.
It depends on the game, as always. But in my experience, I cannot think of any game where I would simply allow a core character to be replaced by a temporary one if it wasn't necessary, simply trusting that the core character would get back in the action later and be able to "easily" catch up. But if I knew that the mercenary would create permanent benefits for other characters, then I'd definitely look more into it.
I am Srime
It depends on the game, as always. But in my experience, I cannot think of any game where I would simply allow a core character to be replaced by a temporary one if it wasn't necessary, simply trusting that the core character would get back in the action later and be able to "easily" catch up. But if I knew that the mercenary would create permanent benefits for other characters, then I'd definitely look more into it.
I am Srime
Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:06 pm
I forgot to argue...
And yes, I know you said dying and not one-shotted, but taking 75% damage from an attack and still being able to function is not the same as dying.
I think both Mogri and msw are forgetting the purpose outlined in using mercenaries: Making a part of the game easier. If the player has trouble getting through a dungeon or beating a boss, and begins to get frustrated, suddenly a character that's more powerful than your own is a more enticing option. EXP "taken" is not really enough to justify making them broken, but they should still be better to some degree, and of course there are the utility characters Mogri suggested (which I would make cheaper than the strong combat unit, I can't imagine a lockpicker looking to make a quick coin costing as much as a battle hardened mercenary with experience).
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb
Quote:
I have never seen a wizard die in one shot, not even in FF4DS. That, and wizard equipment usually sucks for defense anyway, which is why I say that if a small Def boost is the difference between being killed and not killed, then something is up.
Well, he's a wizard...
And yes, I know you said dying and not one-shotted, but taking 75% damage from an attack and still being able to function is not the same as dying.
Quote:
Although Newbie's argument may often be the case, it is not necessarily true. As the player, I don't know how much EXP the merc is going to soak up, because even if he tells me how long he is staying, I don't know what that means in terms of potential levelling.
No matter how much EXP the Merc takes, the long term damage is not going to be that bad, because your other characters are getting EXP as well, and future enemies will provide more EXP to quicken the leveling process. If the game has an unlimited pool of EXP, then the damage is absolutely nothing.
Although Newbie's argument may often be the case, it is not necessarily true. As the player, I don't know how much EXP the merc is going to soak up, because even if he tells me how long he is staying, I don't know what that means in terms of potential levelling.
I think both Mogri and msw are forgetting the purpose outlined in using mercenaries: Making a part of the game easier. If the player has trouble getting through a dungeon or beating a boss, and begins to get frustrated, suddenly a character that's more powerful than your own is a more enticing option. EXP "taken" is not really enough to justify making them broken, but they should still be better to some degree, and of course there are the utility characters Mogri suggested (which I would make cheaper than the strong combat unit, I can't imagine a lockpicker looking to make a quick coin costing as much as a battle hardened mercenary with experience).
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb
Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:22 pm
So basically, either you grind before-hand or get a merc and grind afterwards, right? No. A well made game should never force you to grind or hire a merc to beat a particular part of the game. (Unless It's essential to the story.)
Using mercs as a handicap for less skilled players on the other hand, is a very viable option. But for a more story/Longterm merc experience, you'd never really want to do this, because then you're giving the fullest experience to the worse players.
You're right on saying that being forced to grind isn't a real drawback; -but it is a huge, boring waste of time. And isn't doing things faster the whole purpose of hiring a merc?
On the Wizard's side, I'd just like to point out that I don't think the context of Mogri's example was important. The point is, money can be spent on either upgrading your core characters or hring a merc, which usually does nothing for the longrun benefit.
Using mercs as a handicap for less skilled players on the other hand, is a very viable option. But for a more story/Longterm merc experience, you'd never really want to do this, because then you're giving the fullest experience to the worse players.
You're right on saying that being forced to grind isn't a real drawback; -but it is a huge, boring waste of time. And isn't doing things faster the whole purpose of hiring a merc?
On the Wizard's side, I'd just like to point out that I don't think the context of Mogri's example was important. The point is, money can be spent on either upgrading your core characters or hring a merc, which usually does nothing for the longrun benefit.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:52 pm
Sh4d0ws wrote:
But for a more story/Longterm merc experience, you'd never really want to do this, because then you're giving the fullest experience to the worse players.
I wonder if "worse" can translate to "casual" here.
But I won't go sauntering off on a casual-vs-hardcore discussion here.
So, let's say there's an arena where the player can riskily grind for experience and money like in Fire Emblem. How would this change the benefits/penalties of mercenaries? Off the top of my head, there'd be a very obvious chance to raise your weaker characters and earn money after the mercenaries leave. OTOH, Fire Emblem arenas tend to be easy to exploit, especially if they're put in an RPG with quick, easy recovery and revival.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:01 pm
Quote:
Where did I say grind before hand? Part of the reason one might have trouble with a dungeon/boss is because you don't want to grind, instead progressing through normally. It also isn't solely a matter of how developed yoru characters are, a player could still have trouble even if their characters are at a decent level.
So basically, either you grind before-hand or get a merc and grind afterwards, right? No. A well made game should never force you to grind or hire a merc to beat a particular part of the game. (Unless It's essential to the story.)
There is also little grind afterwards, despite a loss of EXP. Due to the way EXP works, as long as you're willing to fight battles as they come your fourth core character will likely make up a couple of levels just from progressing the game normally.
You have three other characters that have gained EXP during the dungeon crawl. Even though one is maybe two or three levels behind, there shouldn't be much reason to grind. The 5-10 minute estimate I gave earlier was a worst case scenario.
I am also not saying that mercs should be necessary, but that their benefits outweigh exaggerated EXP costs.
Quote:
Equipment is also a short term investment, as they usually get replaced by newer, better equipment eventually.
On the Wizard's side, I'd just like to point out that I don't think the context of Mogri's example was important. The point is, money can be spent on either upgrading your core characters or hring a merc, which usually does nothing for the longrun benefit.
Quote:
There are already arenas in most traditional RPGs, just walk outside into the grass and you have a pool of EXP to use.
So, let's say there's an arena where the player can riskily grind for experience and money like in Fire Emblem. How would this change the benefits/penalties of mercenaries? Off the top of my head, there'd be a very obvious chance to raise your weaker characters and earn money after the mercenaries leave. OTOH, Fire Emblem arenas tend to be easy to exploit, especially if they're put in an RPG with quick, easy recovery and revival.
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb
Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:49 pm
Choosing party members out of a pool of perspective heroes is always a tough decision. Once chosen you become invested in your choice. To me, being persuaded or even forced to change your party is never something I want to happen in an rpg. I'd personally never hire a merc if given the choice, and I'd hate it if I truly had to.
That said, Baconlab's game seems to have a different kind of party system. Characters seem to switch in and out of the party regularly throughout the game, leaving you with an all new set of guys. In this case, I'd have very little if any invested into the characters of the game. I wouldn't see any reason at all not to hire the great big merc that makes things easier because who cares if this guy who's going to leave soon anyways doesn't get that much exp.
This is of course assuming that I understand your chapter system (that I saw on your castle paradox journal) correctly.
On a similar note, I plan to simply have a main party of 3 in my HotOHR game. This will allow me to have a slot open for cameos, mercs and potentially other crazy party antics. ...not to brag or anything.
That said, Baconlab's game seems to have a different kind of party system. Characters seem to switch in and out of the party regularly throughout the game, leaving you with an all new set of guys. In this case, I'd have very little if any invested into the characters of the game. I wouldn't see any reason at all not to hire the great big merc that makes things easier because who cares if this guy who's going to leave soon anyways doesn't get that much exp.
This is of course assuming that I understand your chapter system (that I saw on your castle paradox journal) correctly.
On a similar note, I plan to simply have a main party of 3 in my HotOHR game. This will allow me to have a slot open for cameos, mercs and potentially other crazy party antics. ...not to brag or anything.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:53 pm
Newbie Newtype wrote:
There are already arenas in most traditional RPGs, just walk outside into the grass and you have a pool of EXP to use.
Oh man, the fact that this actually slipped my mind is a, wow. I never really think about grinding much, and my favorite RPGs tend to not require it. BUT ANYWAY
I think my inclusion of an arena in Viridia is justified, but that's a topic for another thread.
It's won't be such a great idea to grind in the desert. Enemies there almost never drop money, and there's a hydration meter to worry about, so you wouldn't be able to stay out for long without investing money in water items - money which you won't be getting back.
Also, Spoons, your memory is spot-on. Even after all of these scattered groups of people get together, I'll continue to have the group split into subgroups to tackle missions - with the player choosing who goes in what group.
Thu Jul 22, 2010 1:11 am
I'm gonna stop talking about Viridia for a while because I want this thread to effectively discuss the potential of mercenary characters in a normal RPG.
So, let's take a random example and call the Yuk Deluxe from Walthros a mercenarycharacter wormthing. You pay a lump sum to hire it, and there you go. Its purpose is to hold a spot in your party until you get someone who will actually develop into a good fighter. It is not strong, it has no unique skills, it has no personality, but it is still very useful because it can take hits and use items to support everyone else. In this regard, I'd consider it a wise investment, sort of like getting a Teddy Bear in Earthbound.
But what if the party (theoretically) consisted of Bob and the three Dinosaurs at that point? The poor Yuk would fade into obscurity and uselessness as players buy it by accident and yell "What a waste!" at Surlaw.
So the stance on mercenaries seriously changes depending on the situation and the game, and the creator needs to give the hiring option a lot of thought before implementing it.
(No, I have not beaten Walthros yet due to a persistent game-crashing bug, so pardon me if I've made a wrong assumption)
So, let's take a random example and call the Yuk Deluxe from Walthros a mercenary
But what if the party (theoretically) consisted of Bob and the three Dinosaurs at that point? The poor Yuk would fade into obscurity and uselessness as players buy it by accident and yell "What a waste!" at Surlaw.
So the stance on mercenaries seriously changes depending on the situation and the game, and the creator needs to give the hiring option a lot of thought before implementing it.
(No, I have not beaten Walthros yet due to a persistent game-crashing bug, so pardon me if I've made a wrong assumption)
Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:17 pm
I was assuming the mercs are actually good and that they out-perform your other characters during the time he exists. If they're filler item-bot characters like Yuk Deluxe, THEN they're unappealing for the price because they suck.
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb
<TheGiz> oh hai doggy, oh no that's the straw that broke tjhe came baclsb