ORK 3's development is going pretty great and just passed it's first compilation (see the development update thread for newest infos on ORK 3 development). With that, I'd like to start a public discussion about changes to ORK 3's naming conventions, i.e. changes to data/feature names.

There isn't really that much I'd like to change, but I'm open for changing more things up if there's a demand for it. So don't be shy and discuss :)

I'm currently planning the following name changes:
- status values > attributes
- attack attributes > attack modifiers
- defence attributes > defence modifiers

In addition to that, certain features will be completely replaced/merged (though this is mainly a naming discussion):
- weapons and armors will be merged to general equipment
- ability trees will be removed, as you can already do the same thing (and more) with research trees

What do you think about those name changes - do you agree or do you want a different name (or keep the old name)? Let me know :)
Post edited by gamingislove on
Please consider rating/reviewing my products on the Asset Store (hopefully positively), as that helps tremendously with getting found.
If you're enjoying my products, updates and support, please consider supporting me on patreon.com!
  • Keep up the great work GIL,

    I'm for the attack and defence name changes but personally think Status Values should remain the same.

    Excited to try Ork 3!
  • I totally agree with the new names, there's been always the discussion about what's an attribute and what's an status, and having Health as an attribute makes more sense than health status.
  • JMRJMR
    edited May 11
    Other changes you made are good, but:
    - status values > attributes
    is horrible.

    Attributes are usually defined as intrinsic characteristic of a person. They are either unchanging, or changeable only trough medical procedures or magic(temporal). Look at DnD, Pathfinder, Fallout, Colony Ship RPG, etc. Status Values are used in Ork to represent not only those static characteristics, but also skills, skill points, experience, chances or health bars that all often change values. I think many people will have difficult time getting their heads around the fact that you use something called "attribute" to represent skill points, chances or experience. It's super confusing and greatly decreases user experience.

    If some people confuse "status values" with "status effects", then change the name to "character values".

    I also recommend to change "classic turn based system" to a "phase turn based system". Calling one type of a turn based system "classic" seems arbitrary, especially when we already have a name for such type.

    Post edited by JMR on
  • edited May 11
    @JMR
    Thanks for the input - since I'm not a native english speaker I'm not always sure which would be the best translation. E.g. status values was a literal translation from how this is usually called in german, not sure what the 'official' name for this would be, though. I don't think there was ever much confusion between status value and status effect :)
    Do you have other suggestions for names instead of status value, or do you think that'd still be the best name for it?

    As for the Classic turn based mode - sure, that could also be changed, but Phase would not be possible, as there's a complete separate Phase battle system available. As you probably know, the Classic mode lets all combatants select their actions first and uses them in order when the last action has been selected - maybe just name it Select First mode?
    Post edited by gamingislove on
    Please consider rating/reviewing my products on the Asset Store (hopefully positively), as that helps tremendously with getting found.
    If you're enjoying my products, updates and support, please consider supporting me on patreon.com!
  • I don't think there ever was something as an official name for such a thing. Status values in Ork are so encompassing part of a system that I think most people would just refer to them as numerical values. I would recommend you leave it as it is.

    I am too a nonnative speaker, but I know pretty well how cRPG communities uses their lingo.

    [After looking into what you call "Phase" in Orc] Is this a system like in new X-Com? Does this system allows use of action points or does it only allows a certain movement range and a single attack per character ? If it's letter, the system such as this is often called "2 AP system", "two actions system" or "move and attack". If it's the former then many would call it a "party wide/ based initiative system"

    I suggested renaming "classic" to "phase" because I see people calling such a system phase based. Creating a new term for this system like "select first" seems to be non productive, because I think that naming conversion should be be calibrated to cRPG communities expectations. Sadly I don't know any widely used name for this type of system, other than "phase" :(

    I totally forgot in my last post :

    Change "Active turn based" to "Traditional turn based" or any other name suggesting this is the most common type of system. Word "Active" may allude to "active time based", like in Final Fantasy.
  • Maybe Stats instead of attributes?

    Combatant could be changed to Character.
  • hellwalker said: Maybe Stats instead of attributes?
    Status values are now used for chances and experience. Calling those stats feels awkward.
    hellwalker said: Combatant could be changed to Character.
    100% agree
  • Also agree with Character instead of Combatant.

    Faction Sympathy -> Faction Reputation?

    Shadowcaste
  • ORK 1 had characters and enemies separated, which ORK 2 combined into combatants. Not sure if I'd be up to changing combatants to characters, though. E.g. I wouldn't say the term fits a slime monster, while combatant fits both player characters and enemy monsters.


    @JMR
    The phase battle system has all combatants of a faction select and perform their action in their own 'phase', before going to the next faction's phase. It's up to your setup if you want to use action points or not.
    Please consider rating/reviewing my products on the Asset Store (hopefully positively), as that helps tremendously with getting found.
    If you're enjoying my products, updates and support, please consider supporting me on patreon.com!
  • Are slimes characters, seems to open grounds for a very interesting discussion :) What about "characters & monsters"?


    Then I would call this system a "party wide/ based initiative system".
  • Renaming Attack/Defence Attributes to Modifiers is a good change. It's much more descriptive as to what they actually do.

    Combatant -> Character would also be a good change IMO. The term "Combatant" implies that the creature or character will be engaging in battles (or can potentially be engaged), but you more or less need to define a Combatant for anything that will have Status Values. In a dialogue-heavy game, you may need to check one of the PC's dialogue skills against an NPC's attribute or skill value. Or if you have defined some Abilities for use outside of combat and you want the NPC to use them. So "Character" does feel more encompassing to me.

    On the other hand, it does feel odd referring to a gelatinous cube, a slime monster, or a magic door (which you want to have health points and an attack ability) as Characters. I suppose you could call them "beings" or "entities" but those are super generic terms, and "entity" already has a specific meaning in Unity.
    JMR said: Attributes are usually defined as intrinsic characteristic of a person. They are either unchanging, or changeable only trough medical procedures or magic(temporal). Look at DnD, Pathfinder, Fallout, Colony Ship RPG, etc.
    That's not entirely true. GURPS and the D6 System (i.e. West End Games' Star Wars RPG) refer to those primary characteristics as Attributes, and allow you to spend character points (XP essentially) to improve them, although it is expensive. And D&D has had built-in increases to ability scores as you level up ever since 3rd Edition (2000).

    But the usage of the term "attribute" in RPG systems has generally be used to refer to what D&D calls Ability Scores: those primary characteristics which have effects throughout the game system.

    ORK's Status Values are used to handle those primary characteristics, as well as secondary/calculated characteristics, skill ratings/levels, experience points, and vitals (health, mana, stamina, etc). I've also made use of hidden Status Values as a means of storing temporary numeric values on a Combatant when I need to use them in multiple Events. The term "Status Value" is pretty generic... but they are used to model a variety of very different numeric values and their behaviours. So maybe the current name should stay?

    And speaking of Events, I would suggest going with the Makinom terminology (if you're not already doing so, as you're building on Makinom). I've found myself needing to clarify an ORK Event vs a C# event vs a UnityEvent too many times in conversation. ;-)
    gamingislove said: As for the Classic turn based mode - sure, that could also be changed, but Phase would not be possible, as there's a complete separate Phase battle system available. As you probably know, the Classic mode lets all combatants select their actions first and uses them in order when the last action has been selected - maybe just name it Select First mode?
    I recall seeing Wizardry's battle system being referred to as a "phased turn-based" system (to differentiate it from something like Pool of Radiance) way back in the day. I suspect that it was designed to model the TSR-era D&D and AD&D rules-as-written where everyone was supposed to first declare their actions each round, then roll initiative after all declarations have been made, then resolve the actions according to the initiative roll. Maybe it should be named the "Rigid and Slow as Molasses Turn-Based Battle System." ;-)

    "Classic" is probably an apt name for it, as it was used by the Wizardry and Bard's Tale games of the 80s, as well as many of the 8-bit and 16-bit JRPGs. While some grognards may still refer to this as "phased," I think that the term "phase-based" is now far more commonly used to refer to battle systems such as used by the Fire Emblem games.

    "Active" does potentially create some confusion with "Active Time." Perhaps "Immediate" is a better term.

    Regardless of which terminology is used, would it be possible to list off a few well-known games as examples in the help text? Or are there potential legal issues with that? I think some concrete, well-known examples would go a long way towards clarifying how each system works.
  • edited May 13
    Keep those ideas coming :)

    Also, just to let you know of another name change that'll happen:
    The status effect's Status Conditions will be renamed to Status Value Changes to better reflect what they actually do. Also, 'conditions' is mainly used for requirement checks, so that name was not a good choice 10 years ago :D

    Also, yeah, since ORK's event system is replaced by Makinom's schematics, that whole naming convention will also be changed, i.e. game/battle/whatever events are replaced by schematics (also in names), and global events will be repalced by global machines.
    Post edited by gamingislove on
    Please consider rating/reviewing my products on the Asset Store (hopefully positively), as that helps tremendously with getting found.
    If you're enjoying my products, updates and support, please consider supporting me on patreon.com!
  • gamingislove said: In addition to that, certain features will be completely replaced/merged (though this is mainly a naming discussion):
    - weapons and armors will be merged to general equipment
    This is a good change as well. A spiked shield, for example, is both a weapon and a piece of armor.

    And while this is a discussion regarding naming, I'll just mention it here as it's relevant to a merged "equipment" type: an easier way to handle equipping ammo (arrows, bullets, etc), and a way for an ability to consume an item equipped in a specific slot (as opposed to having to specify the exact item). I've tried making an Arrow as a "weapon" type that is stackable, but equipping it won't equip the whole stack (and of course you'd need to be able to check a setting so that any Status Value changes, effects, etc are only applied once and not for every item in the stack).
  • I'll chime in here with the Status Values vs. Attributes dialogue. I am in agreement that Status Values should remain named as it is now. Having the Status Types is how I've differentiated the Status Values. I regularly use the word Attributes as a status type to refer to D&D or Pathfinder style attributes like Strength or Charisma. I like that the system is currently set up this way so that I can make Attributes or XP or Skills a status type and then apply that to my various status values.
    gamingislove said: ORK 1 had characters and enemies separated, which ORK 2 combined into combatants. Not sure if I'd be up to changing combatants to characters, though. E.g. I wouldn't say the term fits a slime monster, while combatant fits both player characters and enemy monsters.
    I know there are some people disputing this idea but I liked the fact that Combatant was named as such, both as a component and in the editor. I started coding with the ORK API this year and that name made it stand out for me while writing code. Thinking about it now, the word Character seems more generic than Combatant especially when I'm communicating to my team about changes that need to be made. Referencing a Combatant or Combatant Component really works in my favor as a developer.

    Last two cents for now: The naming conventions for the battle systems always made sense to me, I'd say keep them; but I do agree with Keldryn's suggestion of pairing the system names with a couple of well-known games that use the same system (if that's legally viable). If people have a game that they know or can do some quick research on to see the battle system in action that could cut down on a lot of confusion.
  • So, to sum things up on the general consensus:
    - status values should remain status values
    - attack/defence attributes becoming attack/defence modifiers is ok :)
    Please consider rating/reviewing my products on the Asset Store (hopefully positively), as that helps tremendously with getting found.
    If you're enjoying my products, updates and support, please consider supporting me on patreon.com!
Sign In or Register to comment.