Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
TURN BASED RPGS. WOULD YOU PREFER A LOWER ENEMY ENCOUNTER RATE WITH LONGER MORE COMPLEX ENEMY BATTLES?
Posts
Pages:
1
Mr_TagoMago
View playlists
CloseI know a lot of people complain about how in turn based RPGs you constantly run into enemies which require you to repeatedly spam the same attacks over and over so I wanted to ask if you'd prefer the random enemy encounter rate to be lower but the battles themselves are longer and require more strategy. I think in all my RPGs I'm going to have it set up that way.
Also wanna input a battle system that for many attacks require a sort of mini game to make them work or enemy attacks that have a mini game to help resist damage or end up making it worse. By mini games I mean like in say Paper Mario the thousand year door kinda because I like the idea of being a bit more interactive.
Also wanna input a battle system that for many attacks require a sort of mini game to make them work or enemy attacks that have a mini game to help resist damage or end up making it worse. By mini games I mean like in say Paper Mario the thousand year door kinda because I like the idea of being a bit more interactive.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Here's what you should do:
1. Make the encounter rate low (especially so if you're using the RPG Maker's default method of calculating a random encounter).
2. Make the battles short while making harder hitting enemies. You shouldn't have to wail numerous times on nameless minions that you're going to be fighting battle after battle. Have them die in two hits, but make them strong enough so that they're actually a threat while they're still alive.
1. Make the encounter rate low (especially so if you're using the RPG Maker's default method of calculating a random encounter).
2. Make the battles short while making harder hitting enemies. You shouldn't have to wail numerous times on nameless minions that you're going to be fighting battle after battle. Have them die in two hits, but make them strong enough so that they're actually a threat while they're still alive.
author=Corfaisus
Here's what you should do:
1. Make the encounter rate low (especially so if you're using the RPG Maker's default method of calculating a random encounter).
2. Make the battles short while making harder hitting enemies. You shouldn't have to wail numerous times on nameless minions that you're going to be fighting battle after battle. Have them die in two hits, but make them strong enough so that they're actually a threat while they're still alive.
Dude I just said I planned to make the enemy encounter rate lower. Also the idea was say that you run into say one battle for every four battles in a normal game but the battles are 4 times as long thus the same amount of time is consumed in battles but the battles themselves are more thrilling overall.
turkeyDawg
195
Well, obviously requiring strategy is better than not doing so, but I'll agree with making the more infrequent battles longer. Popcorn enemies are good for action games, but it feels ridiculous when the battle is about the same length or less as the transitional animation going into it. Besides, I don't think its really possible for a two-turn battle to allow for any amount of strategizing anyways. But you have to really make sure that the longer battles actually have some strategy going on, and change things up throughout their duration, or things'll just get tedious real fast!
Hell, I say go Full Treasure and just throw enough mini-bosses at people to make even Alien Soldier blush!
Hell, I say go Full Treasure and just throw enough mini-bosses at people to make even Alien Soldier blush!
To be honest I prefer having short battles and having most of the gameplay revolve around resource management between battles using items. E.g. a lot of small battles means you have to be careful what kinds of things you buy and whether you've packed enough to make it through the larger dungeon.
It could probably go the other way like Wine and Roses though where you create complex battles and inventory management plays no part in it... It's all about what happens inside battle that matters. In a sense the flavour of your RPG gameplay will come from the combination of in-battle and out-of-battle gameplay.
Cue the entry of Craze to prove me completely wrong.
It could probably go the other way like Wine and Roses though where you create complex battles and inventory management plays no part in it... It's all about what happens inside battle that matters. In a sense the flavour of your RPG gameplay will come from the combination of in-battle and out-of-battle gameplay.
Cue the entry of Craze to prove me completely wrong.
Rather than having battles short or long, make the interface smooth and fast. Please. I beg you. I don't mind fighting longer fights. I mind fighting longer fights watching overly long animations for hours every time I try to attack an enemy.
The battle system should depend on the gametype .. I think a mini-game would be a nice change of pace.
But how long are we talking about? How few are the encoutners supposed to be?
I'd advise to go for a medium.
The standard encounter rate is very high, but having few long-ass battles feels (imho) worse than having many shortish battles.
Not counting bosses.
Also note that you can counter encounter rates with appropriate dungeon design - if the rate is ridiculously high, don't make huge dungeons!
If it's fun, there's no harm in having more battles (thinking about you, dungeon crawlers).
But most RPG's simply are not. Go for resource managing, go for staying on your toes with healing required often - less max hp and hard-hitting low HP enemies as corfaisus suggested), go for turn-management (think press-turn system), go for party customization.
The tricky part is to have an interesting package without making it overly complicated - it must run smoothly.
You can practically do anything if you do it right - so rather than thinking about the what, think about the how.
If you have long battles - how can you keep the player engaged?
If you go for short battles - how can you still weave tactic into battles?
If you have party customization, how do you give different options? balance? diversity?
And so on.
You are shooting for minigames - how do you intend to make them fun?
How do you keep them from getting repetitive?
I think you are shooting for something like shadow hearts. If you haven't played it, go check it out. It does the job fairly well
The battle system should depend on the gametype .. I think a mini-game would be a nice change of pace.
But how long are we talking about? How few are the encoutners supposed to be?
I'd advise to go for a medium.
The standard encounter rate is very high, but having few long-ass battles feels (imho) worse than having many shortish battles.
Not counting bosses.
Also note that you can counter encounter rates with appropriate dungeon design - if the rate is ridiculously high, don't make huge dungeons!
If it's fun, there's no harm in having more battles (thinking about you, dungeon crawlers).
But most RPG's simply are not. Go for resource managing, go for staying on your toes with healing required often - less max hp and hard-hitting low HP enemies as corfaisus suggested), go for turn-management (think press-turn system), go for party customization.
The tricky part is to have an interesting package without making it overly complicated - it must run smoothly.
You can practically do anything if you do it right - so rather than thinking about the what, think about the how.
If you have long battles - how can you keep the player engaged?
If you go for short battles - how can you still weave tactic into battles?
If you have party customization, how do you give different options? balance? diversity?
And so on.
You are shooting for minigames - how do you intend to make them fun?
How do you keep them from getting repetitive?
I think you are shooting for something like shadow hearts. If you haven't played it, go check it out. It does the job fairly well
Crystalgate
694
I think that if you are aiming for tactics in battles, 3-5 turns would be easiest. With 3-5 turns I mean you aim for 4 turns, but often the player will be able to either finish it in 3 turns only or will need a fifth turn.
Shorter than that and you pretty much kill any skill that doesn't cause direct damage or heal. Longer than that and you most likely end up with duplicate turns, meaning you have turns where the situation hasn't changed in a meaningful way from the previous one.
As has been mentioned, anything can work though if you can figure out a way to make it work. However, most JRPGs have battles where you just spam the same offensive skill and what doesn't work is copying them and expect other results. Also, there is no single idea that will make battles more tactical by itself, all ideas will only have the desired result if implemented in a competent way.
Shorter than that and you pretty much kill any skill that doesn't cause direct damage or heal. Longer than that and you most likely end up with duplicate turns, meaning you have turns where the situation hasn't changed in a meaningful way from the previous one.
As has been mentioned, anything can work though if you can figure out a way to make it work. However, most JRPGs have battles where you just spam the same offensive skill and what doesn't work is copying them and expect other results. Also, there is no single idea that will make battles more tactical by itself, all ideas will only have the desired result if implemented in a competent way.
author=Crystalgate
I think that if you are aiming for tactics in battles, 3-5 turns would be easiest. With 3-5 turns I mean you aim for 4 turns, but often the player will be able to either finish it in 3 turns only or will need a fifth turn.
Shorter than that and you pretty much kill any skill that doesn't cause direct damage or heal. Longer than that and you most likely end up with duplicate turns, meaning you have turns where the situation hasn't changed in a meaningful way from the previous one.
As has been mentioned, anything can work though if you can figure out a way to make it work. However, most JRPGs have battles where you just spam the same offensive skill and what doesn't work is copying them and expect other results. Also, there is no single idea that will make battles more tactical by itself, all ideas will only have the desired result if implemented in a competent way.
How about most enemy combinations require a strategy to make them go from 5 turns to 3? Like you need to discover their weaknesses while grinding? Of course thre should be the chance that if your not careful the enemies get a hand on you and as a result the battle gets stratched out until you can recooperate.
CashmereCat
To be honest I prefer having short battles and having most of the gameplay revolve around resource management between battles using items. E.g. a lot of small battles means you have to be careful what kinds of things you buy and whether you've packed enough to make it through the larger dungeon.
It could probably go the other way like Wine and Roses though where you create complex battles and inventory management plays no part in it... It's all about what happens inside battle that matters. In a sense the flavour of your RPG gameplay will come from the combination of in-battle and out-of-battle gameplay.
Cue the entry of Craze to prove me completely wrong.
There are so many valid ways to make an RPG! Some people adore the attrition style -- I have played my share of Dragon Quest, so I understand entirely. Some people like FF style, where mooks are simple and you just charge forward to the end. And then there's weirdos like me who sometimes base a dark, moody RPG off of the Megaman series. These are all totally valid ways to make a game!
My current game is actually the direct opposite of WaR. You must survive chains of battles, but instead of them being random they are all touch-encounter. When you interact with a HECSS (Hexagram Encounter Chain Summoning System) or a one-off enemy, a pop-up says the reward, how many battles are being chained, if there are any bosses/minibosses, and the recommended level. If it's a four-chain, you have to survive four battles in a row with no breaks imbetween. That means buffs and debuffs fade between, and there's no chance to use items between either. MP usage becomes a much more immediate concern than a long-term one like in Dragon Quest. Are you gonna save Wish's MP by using Potions to let her blast any Sea Breezes with her expensive Storm magic, or are you gonna just have her Regen every turn she doesn't have to nuke? Whether or not her MP lasts the chain depends on your planning... just try not to die.
So I guess my final answer to the OP is this: I'd rather whatever style fits your game, as long as it's done well. =)
RyaReisender
200
For me it depends strongly on how low the encounter rate is.
Every battle being different and requiring a tactic rather than just smashing buttons is great, but if that means that I have to walk around and talk to NPCs and read stuff for several minutes in between every battle, then the game is too dialogue heavy for me and I'll get bored.
For example say there is a dungeon.
Too many encounters: There are only 3-5 different encounter sets and there are more than 10 encounters in the dungeon and the only real battle that requires strategy is the boss battle at the end.
Too few encounters: There are no battles in the dungeon except the boss at the end.
Correct way (random encounters): There are 10 different encounter sets that all require a different strategy to win.
Correct way (fixed encounters): You carefully design the dungeon encounters so that they are all unique. In that one room, giant rats come through the holes in the wall and bats from the ceiling. In the next one a giant spider jumps from the ceiling and a few smaller spiders join it. In another room the corpses suddenly start moving and you have to face skeletons and zombies. And so on.
Every battle being different and requiring a tactic rather than just smashing buttons is great, but if that means that I have to walk around and talk to NPCs and read stuff for several minutes in between every battle, then the game is too dialogue heavy for me and I'll get bored.
For example say there is a dungeon.
Too many encounters: There are only 3-5 different encounter sets and there are more than 10 encounters in the dungeon and the only real battle that requires strategy is the boss battle at the end.
Too few encounters: There are no battles in the dungeon except the boss at the end.
Correct way (random encounters): There are 10 different encounter sets that all require a different strategy to win.
Correct way (fixed encounters): You carefully design the dungeon encounters so that they are all unique. In that one room, giant rats come through the holes in the wall and bats from the ceiling. In the next one a giant spider jumps from the ceiling and a few smaller spiders join it. In another room the corpses suddenly start moving and you have to face skeletons and zombies. And so on.
Pages:
1
