Been cycling through three projects, currently back onto my tabletop fighter-game. However, in the middle of a revision (from A0.0.4 to A0.0.5) I started to notice a problem: material bloat. Having several kinds of jabs, several kinds of cross, several kinds of roundhouse-kick, etc... It started to seem like the box would contain a lot of shit, with each player-group essentially winding up with a bunch of junk that might not fit their playstyles.
So I started working on an A0.0.6 version. However, I am not considering this to necessarily be a follow-up. It's more like I'll be comparing tests of both A0.0.5 and A0.0.6 to decide which will be the basis for B0.1.0. Currently my focus is on A0.0.6, as it will be quicker to complete than A0.0.5 which also bears a closer resemblance to previous alpha versions, so this should give me much quicker insights as to how both compare.
Anyway, to summarize the core distinctions of the two versions:
> In A0.0.5, you pick 3 actions each round. These actions are pretty specific: disrupting jab is different from leading jab, for example, and you decide which ones you put in the moveset.
< In A0.0.6, you pick 3 actions and a modifier. These actions are much more basic, but the addition of the modifier adds to the dynamic: you could apply "disrupting" to "jab", "headbutt", etc.
Weighing some hypothetical pros and cons of each system. Green refers to A0.0.5, red refers to A0.0.6:
> Each action is more dynamic, allowing for dense inter-round strategic moves with unexpected applications.
< Diversified movesets and in-game strategy allow for more in-game combat control and less risk of one-sided beatings.
> Moves not bound to a base, different jabs follow common design principles rather than common base numbers.
< Easier to balance for the long-run, with move-types being much more consistent in how they function.
> Quicker planning-phase due to just picking 3-actions, possible better flow.
< Extra-layer of active in-round decisionPost too long. Click here to view the full text.