关于伤害计算公式的一点领悟(An understanding of damage calculation formula)

入行之初,大部分策划一般是从执行策划或系统策划起手,我也不例外。

最开始,只会做系统,对数值在游戏体验上的理解颇浅。入行一段时间之后,开始认识到数值的重要性,最彻底的改变是在游素的一段时间,受到九娱的设计理念影响,认为游戏是以数值为基准设计,系统不过是配合数值节奏和框架的填充内容和概念包装。但是如今回过头来,越来越觉得系统才是关键,系统框架越坚实合理,数值的容错空间越大,锦上添花越有效果,颇有一种看山是山,看山不是山,看山还是山的领悟历程。

以减法伤害公式为例,上个项目一直用的是除法公式,数值投放上很方便,但是理解不便,而且会出现一些属性追求的偏向性问题。

新项目打算用攻击-防御的基础公式来做简洁直观的体验,提到减法公式,一些策划会在不破防问题上很头痛,导致对其避而远之,或者一般用最低伤害处理不破防情况。

首先减法公式本身其实没有问题,对于个人战斗,不破防无所谓,这是实力差距的正常体现,当然强制伤害=1对压制方来说也算是一种感官正反馈完全可以保留。

关键在于这个公式在部分场合表现出的缺陷,比如常提到的一人灭一国这种团战情况。在我看来,这其实也可以理解为一个系统设计问题,既然是系统问题,可以用系统规则来处理,也就是在有问题的系统,设置规则来解决这个看起来是数值的问题。

例子1:

团战每击杀1人,被击杀者会给击杀者叠加一定的破防值(概念上可以理解为损耗护甲),来降低击杀者的防御属性。

例子2:

SLG战棋里面,通过包围和夹击概念额外提高攻击属性,或者额外降低防御属性,或者造成额外真实伤害来解决不破防问题。

之所以叫系统的思路,而不是数值的思路,是因为这种解决方案是根据不同的游戏玩法和系统规则得到的解决方案,这种方式可以在不同系统概念中,采用对应的概念机制来配合解决,这样反而可以提供不同系统的特色体验。而数值的思路就是,不管是SLG还是RPG,既然有不破防,那就给个不破防公式。

————————

At the beginning of entering the industry, most planning generally starts from executive planning or system planning, and I am no exception.

At the beginning, I only know how to make systems, and I have a shallow understanding of numerical values in the game experience. After entering the industry for a period of time, he began to realize the importance of numerical value. The most radical change was that during a period of wandering, influenced by the design concept of nine entertainment, he thought that the game was designed based on numerical value, and the system was just the filling content and concept packaging in line with the numerical rhythm and framework. But now looking back, more and more people feel that the system is the key. The more solid and reasonable the system framework is, the larger the fault-tolerant space of the value is, and the more effective the icing on the cake is. There is a process of understanding that mountains are mountains, mountains are not mountains, and mountains are mountains.

Take the subtraction injury formula as an example. The division formula has been used in the last project. It is very convenient to put the value, but it is inconvenient to understand, and there will be some biased problems in the pursuit of attributes.

The new project plans to use the basic formula of attack defense to make a concise and intuitive experience. Referring to the subtraction formula, some plans will have a headache on the problem of not breaking the defense, resulting in avoiding it, or generally dealing with the situation of not breaking the defense with the lowest damage.

First of all, the subtraction formula itself is actually no problem. It doesn’t matter if you don’t break the defense for personal combat. This is the normal embodiment of the strength gap. Of course, forced damage = 1 is also a kind of sensory positive feedback for the oppressor, which can be retained.

The key lies in the defects of this formula on some occasions, such as the often mentioned group war in which one person destroys one country. In my opinion, this can also be understood as a system design problem. Since it is a system problem, it can be handled by system rules, that is, set rules in the problematic system to solve this seemingly numerical problem.

Example 1:

Every time a group war kills one person, the slain will add a certain defense breaking value (conceptually, it can be understood as armor loss) to the slayer to reduce the defense attribute of the slayer.

Example 2:

In SLG war chess, the concept of encirclement and pincer attack is used to increase the attack attribute, or reduce the defense attribute, or cause additional real damage to solve the problem of not breaking the defense.

The reason why it is called system thinking rather than numerical thinking is that this solution is obtained according to different game playing methods and system rules. This method can be solved by adopting corresponding concept mechanisms in different system concepts. Instead, it can provide characteristic experiences of different systems. The numerical idea is to give a formula for not breaking the defense, whether SLG or RPG.